does anyone know if spa-as-petitioner or spa-as-respondent referred to the
spa inquiry that formed the context of the subject of this petition?
at the spa alumni gbm on 28 april where the court matter was explained i
had suggested (and afterwards also written to all parties) that the report
be placed in court so that status quo sought on the MoA does not extend to
status quo on the general state of affairs.
does anyone have any idea at all (beyond the press reports of end
December) about the inquiry report and what exactly is being achieved by
the court cases about spa?
> http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=85160
>
> SPA council back in saddle: Interim order
> Express News Service
>
> New Delhi, May 20: The Delhi High Court today while hearing the petition
> alleging interference by the Ministry of HRD in the autonomy of the
> School of Planning and Architecture (SPA), passed an interim order
> authorising the old general council and old executive council to carry
> on day to day functioning of the school. Earlier, the court in April
> while admitting the petition had, issued a stay order on the resolutions
> constituting a new general council and new executive council.
>
> When the Central Government asked for an adjournment, counsel for the
> petitioners Rakesh Tiku argued before the court today that the delay was
> affecting the functioning of the institute. He alleged that entrance
> admissions for new students was due to be held and in the absence of
> both these bodies selection of students etc. was likely to be hampered.
> The court thereafter, passed an interim order until the disposal of the
> petition.
>
> The petitioners, Vijay Garg, Puneet Sethi and Ajay Puri all members of
> the general council and also Alumnae of the School had alleged that the
> HRD ministry was trying to interfere in the autonomous functioning of
> the school by forcing a revision in its rules ? the Memorandum of
> Association. The ministry it was alleged had attempted to alter the
> constitution of the general council ? from 54 members to 14. It was
> trying to get this ratified by the executive council and not by 2/3
> members of the general council as as the norm.
>
> The counsel for the petitioners alleged that the Ministry had resorted
> to ??pressure tactics?? and was refusing to release funds for the
> school. The Joint Secretary of the HRD it was alleged in the petition
> had tried to in a ??malafide?? manner virtually attempted to ??take
> over?? the school and wanted it to be run by their handpicked members.
>
> In a move which was similar to that of the IIMs, the Ministry of HRD had
> attempted to curb the autonomy of the School of Planning and Architecture.
> _______________________________________________
> in-enaction mailing list
> in-enaction@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://mail.architexturez.net/mailman/listinfo/in-enaction
>
spa inquiry that formed the context of the subject of this petition?
at the spa alumni gbm on 28 april where the court matter was explained i
had suggested (and afterwards also written to all parties) that the report
be placed in court so that status quo sought on the MoA does not extend to
status quo on the general state of affairs.
does anyone have any idea at all (beyond the press reports of end
December) about the inquiry report and what exactly is being achieved by
the court cases about spa?
> http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=85160
>
> SPA council back in saddle: Interim order
> Express News Service
>
> New Delhi, May 20: The Delhi High Court today while hearing the petition
> alleging interference by the Ministry of HRD in the autonomy of the
> School of Planning and Architecture (SPA), passed an interim order
> authorising the old general council and old executive council to carry
> on day to day functioning of the school. Earlier, the court in April
> while admitting the petition had, issued a stay order on the resolutions
> constituting a new general council and new executive council.
>
> When the Central Government asked for an adjournment, counsel for the
> petitioners Rakesh Tiku argued before the court today that the delay was
> affecting the functioning of the institute. He alleged that entrance
> admissions for new students was due to be held and in the absence of
> both these bodies selection of students etc. was likely to be hampered.
> The court thereafter, passed an interim order until the disposal of the
> petition.
>
> The petitioners, Vijay Garg, Puneet Sethi and Ajay Puri all members of
> the general council and also Alumnae of the School had alleged that the
> HRD ministry was trying to interfere in the autonomous functioning of
> the school by forcing a revision in its rules ? the Memorandum of
> Association. The ministry it was alleged had attempted to alter the
> constitution of the general council ? from 54 members to 14. It was
> trying to get this ratified by the executive council and not by 2/3
> members of the general council as as the norm.
>
> The counsel for the petitioners alleged that the Ministry had resorted
> to ??pressure tactics?? and was refusing to release funds for the
> school. The Joint Secretary of the HRD it was alleged in the petition
> had tried to in a ??malafide?? manner virtually attempted to ??take
> over?? the school and wanted it to be run by their handpicked members.
>
> In a move which was similar to that of the IIMs, the Ministry of HRD had
> attempted to curb the autonomy of the School of Planning and Architecture.
> _______________________________________________
> in-enaction mailing list
> in-enaction@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://mail.architexturez.net/mailman/listinfo/in-enaction
>