The Kerala High Court has held that transgender students cannot be enrolled in any National Cadet Corps divisions because the existing National Cadet Corps Act, 1948, does not recognise their inclusion under the present legal framework.
Today, On 27th March, The Supreme Court asked the Centre and other authorities to respond to a petition concerning JEE-Advanced 2025. The plea raises concerns about eligibility criteria and exam-related issues. The court’s notice seeks clarity on the matter before making a decision. Further hearings will determine if any changes are required for the exam process.
The Karnataka High Court has mandated prioritizing ‘absolutely blind’ individuals over those with ‘low vision’ in job recruitment to ensure equal opportunities based on qualifications. The ruling arises from a case involving H.N. Latha, who challenged her job rejection, reinforcing the need for inclusive hiring practices that recognize the strengths of blind candidates.
The Supreme Court has partly stayed a Mumbai college’s ban on students wearing burqa, hijab, or niqab on campus. Justices questioned the rationale behind the decision, emphasizing students’ right to choose attire. This case has significant implications for dress codes and religious expression in educational institutions across India.
![[Breaking] Supreme Court Strikes Down Haryana's 5-Marks Reservation in Employment Exams](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/image-16-1.png?resize=447%2C309&ssl=1)
The Supreme Court of India has declared unconstitutional Haryana government’s 5-marks reservation in employment exams, affecting 23,000 appointments across Group C and D positions. The policy, aimed at economically disadvantaged candidates, was struck down due to lack of justification, putting existing appointments at risk and requiring affected candidates to retake exams.
The Supreme Court of India clarified that the Constitution does not specify criteria for government servant promotions, leaving this to the discretion of the legislature and executive. The bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, highlighted the flexibility in determining promotion norms within the administrative framework. This sheds light on the evolving emphasis on merit in promotion criteria. The judgment emphasized that ‘merit-cum-seniority’ and ‘seniority-cum-merit’ are not mandated by law but are flexible and fluid concepts, providing dynamic guidelines for developing promotion policies.
