Unwarranted glorification of M.Phil in derogation of Ph.D

Kurukshetra University is pleased to invite application, inter alia, for the post of Assistant Professor in Law in the Department of Law vide advt. no. 4/2011. In addition to the requirement of minimum qualification for eligibility, the University has laid down criteria enumerating the various categories for short listing the candidates to be called for interview in case the number of eligible candidates for one post exceeds fifteen. For every additional post, maximum fifteen additional candidates will be invited for interview. It further sets out that in case the number of eligible candidates is more than the above prescribed number of candidates, the screening committee shall short list the candidates, in the descending order, in the light of the prescribed criteria in addition to conditions laid down for the eligibility.
Bare facedly, the said short listing criteria bear out that those candidates who are NET + Ph.D simpliciter do not find any place in any of the categories except the residuary Category-7 that reads as “All the candidates who do not fall in any of the above category if fulfill the eligibility conditions will be called for interview.” Conversely, the candidates who are NET + M.Phil simpliciter enjoy weightage/preferential treatment and are privileged to find place in Category-6 that reads as “NET/SLET with 2nd Class M.Phil” i.e. one notch above the residuary category-7 wherein only the NET + Ph.D simpliciter may find a place as per the prescribed criteria.
The above factual narration clearly shows that said short listing criteria has assigned M.Phil a superior place in derogation of Ph.D. that is highly unnatural, untenable, unreasonable and arbitrary.
It is further brought out that said short listing criteria assigning weightage/preferential treatment to M.Phil. in one manner or other seems to be unwarranted and undesirable as far as discipline of Law is concerned, keeping in view the fact that, no University (whether State or Private or Deemed) or any other Institute in and around Haryana offers M.Phil Course in Law.
Dr. RAJENDER GOYAL

Supreme Court verdict raises a vital issue of bearing of Morality on Law

A Bench comprising Justices Dalveer Bhandari and Deepak Verma of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a verdict on 29th September has rightly ruled that people’s right to own property fell very much with in the domain of human rights. However, it also raises a vital issue of bearing of morality on law. It is no gainsaid to emphasize that law of adverse possession under which any person in illegal possession of a property for 12 years could claim legal ownership of it in preference to real owner, if certain other requisite legal imperatives are satisfied, is immoral per se.
Does law and morality not have any nexus with each other? Can a law be formulated in total oblivion of moral considerations? If a law is bereft of morality, can it be enforced efficaciously? Is Law in force in India has underpinnings of morality in it? A bird’s eye view of various laws in force in India will bear out that it is not entirely devoid of morality viz. Law against immoral trafficking including Prostitution, Child Labour; Exemption of certain movable and immovable property from attachment and sale in execution of a decree; Complete exoneration of criminal acts of a child under seven years of age; Plethora of social welfare Legislations; Special provisions for Women, Children and other Vulnerable sections of the Society; Quota based Reservation Policy as a part of Affirmative Action are worth mentioning in a ocean that abounds with such provision.
However, human rights as appendages of “fundamental right of life and personal liberty” as enshrined in the Indian Constitution are inalienable. Going by that yardstick, once Supreme Court holds that right to property is one of the human rights, shouldn’t the law of adverse possession become ultra vire the Constitution of India and hence, a dead letter.
As a Corollary, doesn’t the law that declare a debt as time barred if no legal proceedings initiated for recovery with in three year from the time when it became due also deserves the protective cover of human rights? Doesn’t every rigor of law of limitation impinge on one or other human right?