+

Supreme Court Asked NLU Jodhpur To File Progress Report On Regularisation Of Staff

The Supreme Court in the case The National Law University Jodhpur v. Prashant Mehta and Ors observed and has asked the National Law University, Jodhpur, to submit a progress report with regards to the regularisation of its faculty within two months. The present matter is related to the University mainly employing teachers on contract basis. […]

The Supreme Court in the case The National Law University Jodhpur v. Prashant Mehta and Ors observed and has asked the National Law University, Jodhpur, to submit a progress report with regards to the regularisation of its faculty within two months. The present matter is related to the University mainly employing teachers on contract basis.

Earlier, the said court has expressed concerns about the University having only contractual staff. The bench comprising of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia was hearing the [resent matter. The court passed the said direction when the said court was appraised by the University that a new Vice Chancellor has taken over the administration and further a scheme has been set out for having regular staff.

It has also been noted by the court that the University has no Vice Chancellor, and that Registrar is also a contractual staff while also expressing serious concerns at the University which is operating only with contractual teachers.

The bench in the case observed and has opined that it would prefer the NLU remedying the situation itself rather than the Court interfering. The court in its present order while asking for the progress report also marked that there is no harm in analysing the mentioned issue in view of the reform measures being taken.

The Apex Court in the case was tasked with hearing an appeal challenging the order of the Rajasthan High Court, therein the High Court, the mong other findings, also struck down the service regulations, employing for teachers on contractual basis as being ultra-vires of Articles 14, the Equality before law, Article 16, the Equality of opportunity in public employment and Article 21, the Right to Life of the Constitution of India.

The High Court in the case observed and has held that the service Regulation providing for employing teachers on contract basis for a tenure or on ad hoc term only and providing for termination of contract by giving one month’s notice are manifestly arbitrary and unreasonable and in clear negation of Article 14, Article 16 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Tags: