Friday, Apr 11, 2003
Friday, Apr 11, 2003 |
| Southern States | ||
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary | Southern States
-
Karnataka
By Our Staff Correspondent
In a release, the MUPTCA pointed out that the Act still existed and the provisions had neither been interpreted nor declared invalid in the Supreme Court judgement of October 30. Therefore, the Government must enforce the provisions of the Act and fill up the seats through CET, the release added. It was pointed out that education was now in the Concurrent List and, as the Union Government had not come out with any legislation on matters related to it, the State must come out with a clear policy through an Ordinance for the benefit of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, backward classes, candidates from rural areas, the urban poor, and lower middle-class students. The signatories to the statement, which included eminent citizens of Mysore, said the CET system was foolproof and transparent. As per the Havanur Commission's report, reservation was provided to SC/STs and backward class students. Five per cent reservation was also provided to Kannada-medium students and 10 per cent quota for students from rural areas. In the past 10 years, nearly two lakh students had secured admission to professional courses, the statement said. It was the responsibility of the Government to see that students from the above categories secured seats in professional colleges at an affordable cost. The statement comes in the backdrop of the controversy over admission to professional colleges in the State. The signatories pointed out that the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984 regulated the admissions to private professional colleges and, since the Act had not become invalid, the admission process should follow the Act. A Division Bench of the Supreme Court in the Mohini Jain vs. Karnataka case, 1992, declared the right to education as a fundamental right. It stated that the educational institutions must function to the best advantage of the citizens, and opportunities to acquire education could not be confined to the rich sections of society. Levying an annual fee of Rs. 60,000 per student was held to be capitation fee and not tuition fee. Likewise, in the Unnikrishnan case in 1993, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that the right to education meant that every child had a right to free education till the age of 14. After that the right to education was circumscribed by the limits of the economic capacity of the State, it said, adding that establishing educational institutions was not a trade. However, the State Government should have come out with a clear policy following the Supreme Court judgement in the T.M.A. Pai Foundation vs. Karnataka State case which covered non-minority institutions. Instead, the Government was dragging its feet and bargaining with the managements, the statement said. The signatories to the statement included K.Ramdas, Lingadevaru Halemane, Prabhu Shankar, G.H.Nayak, R.Indira, S.G.Vombatkere, J.RT.Lakshman Rao, S.Jacob, and G.T.Narayan Rao.
Printer friendly
page
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | The Hindu eBooks | Home |
Copyright © 2003, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|
