Don?t use Engineering lecturers for two shifts, orders HC

Sept. 23: Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao of the AP High Court on Thursday made it clear to the engineering colleges that teaching faculty should not be used for two shifts in day.

The judge was dealing with a petition filed by Vidya Jyothi Educational Society, represented by its secretary, Mr V. Purushottam Reddy, challenging the action of the JNTU in not granting the affiliation to run second shift in Vidya Jyothi Institute of Technology. The petitioner brought to the notice of the court that the AICTE granted permission to them to run second shift in their institution and contended that the action of the JNTU was illegal and unconstitutional

The petitioner sought an interim direction from the court to directing the respondents to fill up the seats to the second shift in their institution by including the second shift seats in the counseling being conducted for admissions to the academic year 2010-2011.

The judge ruled that if a particular faculty member was assigned teaching or research or training filed work to be attended to in one shift on a particular day, he should not be entrusted with similar kind of duties in the second shift on the same day. The judge directed the authorities to take steps to admit the students in petitioner?s institution as per the quota sanctioned by the AICTE.

Writ filed against judge?s resignation

A writ petition was filed in the AP High Court on Thursday challenging the withdrawal of the resignation of Justice CV Nagarjuna Reddy. It may be mentioned that Justice Reddy on September 16 offered to quit from his post after he was pained by violent acts of some advocates in the High Court. He withdrew his decision on September 18.

Mr R. Chandrashekar Reddy, a practicing advocate, filed a petition contending that Article 217 of Constitution does not give right to withdraw resignation. He told the court that once the resignation was submitted by a judge in accordance with procedure prescribed in Constitution, the right to withdraw it cannot be implied.

He further contended that in the absence of constitutional provision warranting the course, it could not be withdrawn or revoked, the resignation is effective; such resignation to be effective does not require acceptance by the President.

The petitioner sought a direction from the court to direct the judge not to discharge his judicial work.

Balaji fertilisers challenges case
Mr K. Sankar Reddy, one of the partners of Balaji Fertilisers owned by Kadapa mayor Mr Ravindranath Reddy, on Thursday approached the High Court challenging the action of the police in registering a case against him. The petitioner contended that the police has no jurisdiction to book a case as per the Fertilisers? Control Order and the inclusion of Section 420 of IPC against him was a figment of imagination of the police.


Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.