Bhopal: MIM to help school dropout, poor youth with job opportunities

Free Press India
Jun 23, 2018




Bhopal: Girish Verma, chairman of Maharishi Institute of Management (MIM) Group said, Maharishi Group of Educational Institutions wants to help increase employment opportunities for school dropout and economically backward youth. Chancellor of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavdiyalaya Verma was interacting with media here on Friday.

“Maharishi Group is collaborating with number of institutions of high repute to design and offer short term, full time under graduate and PG programmes which will allow skill development in financial market, health sector and many other fields, where opportunity for employability is very high,” said Verma.

The courses will be made available through Maharishi Institute of Management, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyalaya Madhya Pradesh, Maharishi University of Management and Technology Chhattisgarh and 98 Maharishi Vidya Mandir Schools country wide, informed Verma.

MIM executive vice president VSP Rao said, “ Maharishi Shiksha Sansthan Groups launching skill based, career focused, job ready courses, in MIM’s four locations –Bhopal, Indore, Benglore and Greater Noida from academic year—2018-2019. These course will be offered in collaboration with reputed institutions such as National Stock Exchange Academy, Multi Commodity Exchange, ACADGILD and AIRA Sociocare, which have developed the content after exhaustive discussions with prestigious recruiters and leading corporate houses from all over the Country.”

Col. TPS Kandra, Director Maharishi Centre for Educational Excellence Bhopal informed that at present MCEE, Bhopal offers BA, BBA, BCA, B.Com, B.Com(CA), BA BEd, BPEd, PG Diploma in Yogic Science affiliated to Barkatullah University, Bhopal and approved by NCTE/AICTE. MCA is approved by AICTE and affiliated to RGPV Bhopal.

http://www.freepressjournal.in/bhopal/bhopal-mim-to-help-school-dropout-poor-youth-with-job-opportunities/1302581

Indore: 25 private universities come up in last 7 years in Madhya Pradesh

Atul Gautam
The Free Press Journal
April 26, 2018

Indore: With government relaxing rules for setting up private universities, the business of awarding degrees has mushroomed in the state. Madhya Pradesh, which had only one private university till 2009, has 26 private universities at present. “About 25 private universities came up in last seven years,” ex-registrar of Devi Ahilya Vishwavidyalaya, R D Musalgaonkar, said.

In comparison, two government universities were set up in MP in last seven years. They include Sanchi Vishwavidyalaya and Hindi Vishwavidyalaya. In all, there are 24 government universities in the state, which include two central universities.

According to Musalgaonkar, all one needs is 30-acre land to set up a private university. “If you have the land and building on it, you can obtain permission from state government to run a private university,” he said. The government does not check whether the institute has library, laboratories and required number of teachers while granting it the status of private university.

The state’s first private university was established in Jabalpur in 1995 and is called Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyalaya. At that time, the rules for setting up private universities were strict to the extent that no other private player could set up a university in MP for next 25 years.

In 2010, the state government relaxed rules after which the private players made a beeline to set up universities. According to information, three private universities were setup in MP in 2010 followed by six in 2011, two in 2013, one in 2014, five in 2015, four in 2016 and three in 2017.

With 8 private varsities, Indore is leader

The city has the maximum number of private universities in MP. As per UGC website, the state’s commercial capital has a total of eight private universities followed by Bhopal, which has seven universities. At national level, MP stands fourth with maximum number of private universities. Rajasthan has 46 private universities, which is highest in the country. It is followed by 30 in Gujarat and 29 in Uttar Pradesh.

http://www.freepressjournal.in/indore/indore-25-private-universities-come-up-in-last-7-years-in-madhya-pradesh/1265206

Rajesh Sharma vs Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyalaya University on 11 September, 2015

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Rajesh Sharma vs Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Vedi ... on 11 September, 2015

                          WP-13778-2014
(RAJESH SHARMA Vs MAHARISHI MAHESH YOGI VEDI VISHWAVIDYALAYA UNIVERSITY)


11-09-2015

Parties through their counsel. Heard on I.A.No.10042/2015, which is an application seeking amendment.

Considering the reasons so stated in the application, it is hereby allowed.

Necessary amendment be carried out within three working days.

List thereafter.

(J.K. MAHESHWARI) JUDGE

http://indiankanoon.org/doc/181637913/

Ms.Monika Kushwah vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 June, 2015

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ms.Monika Kushwah vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 June, 2015

                                       W.P.7671/13                                   1

                HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                            BENCH AT GWALIOR
                        JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL.

                         Writ Petition No. 7671/13

                              Dinesh Kushwah
                                      Vs.
                            State of M.P. & Others

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri D.P.Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Amit Bansal, Dy.Govt. Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 4/
State.
Shri S.S.Kushwaha, Advocate for the respondent No.5-
University.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         Writ Petition No. 7672/13

                                 Mahesh Yadav
                                         Vs.
                            State of M.P. & Others
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri D.P.Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Amit Bansal, Dy.Govt. Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 4/
State.
Shri S.S.Kushwaha, Advocate for the respondent No.5-
University.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         Writ Petition No. 7673/13

                              Pradeep Baroniya
                                      Vs.
                            State of M.P. & Others

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri D.P.Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Amit Bansal, Dy.Govt. Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 4/
State.
Shri S.S.Kushwaha, Advocate for the respondent No.5-
University.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         Writ Petition No. 7927/13

                             Ms. Monika Kushwah
                                         Vs.
                            State of M.P. & Others
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri D.P.Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
                                        W.P.7671/13                                  2

Shri Amit Bansal, Dy.Govt. Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 4/
State.
Shri S.S.Kushwaha, Advocate for the respondent No.5-
University.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                         Writ Petition No. 7928/13

                                Pramod Rathore
                                         Vs.
                            State of M.P. & Others
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri D.P.Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Amit Bansal, Dy.Govt. Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 4/
State.
Shri S.S.Kushwaha, Advocate for the respondent No.5-
University.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



                         Writ Petition No. 7929/13

                            Dharmendra Prajapati
                                      Vs.
                            State of M.P. & Others

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri D.P.Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Amit Bansal, Dy.Govt. Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 4/
State.
Shri S.S.Kushwaha, Advocate for the respondent No.5-
University.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



                        Writ Petition No. 7974/2013

                              Ved Prakash Gaur
                                      Vs.
                            State of M.P. & Others

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri D.P.Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Amit Bansal, Dy.Govt. Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 4/
State.
Shri S.S.Kushwaha, Advocate for the respondent No.5-
University.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        W.P.7671/13                                  3

                         Writ Petition No. 2810/15

                               Rameshwar Rathor
                                         Vs.
                            State of M.P. & Others
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri R.K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Amit Bansal, Dy.Govt. Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 4/
State.
Shri S.S.Kushwaha, Advocate for the respondent No.5-
University.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                   ORDER

( 25 / 06 /2015) In these batch of petitions, similar questions are involved. Accordingly, on the joint request of the parties, these matters were analogously heard and decided by this common order.

Facts are taken from W.P. No.7671/2013.

2. The petitioner, pursuant to an advertisement issued by official respondents, submitted his candidature for the post of Subedar. It is contended that the petitioner has requisite qualification as per the rules Annexure P-7. It is contended that petitioner is having diploma in Office Management and diploma in Computer Application from recognized institutions. He fulfills the requirement of relevant rules and, therefore, petitioner is eligible for the post of Subedar.

3. This is second visit of the petitioner. Earlier he filed Writ petition No. 5292/13 which was disposed of at admission stage itself on 14.8.2013. The petitioner was given liberty to file a detailed representation and in turn, the competent authority was directed to decide the said representation by a reasoned order. In turn, the respondents have passed the order dated 30.8.2013 and candidature of the petitioner was rejected. This common order is called in question in all the connected matters.

4. Shri D.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, by taking this Court to relevant portion of the rules, contends that the petitioner has requisite qualification. He submits that the stand of the respondents that the respondent No.5-University was not authorized to issue the diploma in Office Management is incorrect. He submits that respondent No.5 is established pursuant to local Act and as per the scheme and object of the said Act, the said University was well within its authority to issue one year diploma in Modern Office Management. The State Government has published a Gazette notification on 9.5.1997 and as per the said notification, the diploma in Office Management and Secretarial Procedure is treated as recognized courses. After having issued said notification dated 9.5.07 (page

28), it is not open to the respondents to contend that petitioner is not eligible. In addition he relied on executive instruction dated 10.9.2010 to contend that for issuance of diploma in Computer Application, all the Universities which are recognized from UGC are authorized to issue certificate. It is contended that the action of the respondents is arbitrary in not treating the petitioner as eligible. In the course of argument, Shri D.P.Singh also relied on Section 37(A) of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam. He also relied on 2002 (2) MPHT 353 (DB) (Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyalaya and others Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.).

5. Shri S.S.Kushwaha, learned counsel for respondent No.5- University relied on the same notification and borrowed the same argument which was advanced by Shri D.P.Singh. He submits that the said University is competent to issue the certificate of diploma in Computer Application and Office Management.

6. Per contra, Shri Amit Bansal, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate relied on various paragraphs of the return and also relied on certain annexures. He contended that the respondent No.5-University is not approved by AICTE as Polytechnic College. Therefore, the Diploma issued by it in Modern Office Management cannot be accepted and, therefore, the respondents have not committed any error in rejecting the claim of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the General Administration Department/State Government has not issued any circular to declare the certificates issued by respondent as "equivalent" to the certificate issued by the Govt. Polytechnic College. In absence of aforesaid, the petitioner has no case.

7. No other points are pressed by the learned counsel for the parties.

8. I have bestowed my anxious consideration on the rival contentions of the parties and perused the record.

9. I deem it apposite to reproduce the relevant portion of eligibility condition from rule book (Annexure P/7). It reads as under :-

2. Lkwcsnkj ¼vuqlfpoh; ½ ¼1-½ gk;j lsdsaMjh ijh{kk iqjkuh iz.kkyh ;k gk;j 'kh?kzys[kd ¼LVsuksxzkQj½ lsdsaMjh Ldwy lfVZfQdsV ijh{kk ¼10$2½ iz.kkyh esa mRrh.kZ gksuk pkfg,] RkFkk ¼2-½ e/;izns'k 'kh?kzys[ku rFkk eqnzys[ku ijh{kk ifj"kn @ cksMZ ;k led{k ekU;rk izkIr laLFkku ls eqnzys[ku rFkk 'kh?kzys[ku ¼ LVksuksVk;fiLV @ vk'kqfyfid ds in gsrq 80 'kCn izfr feuV rFkk 'kh?kzys[kd @ LVsuksxzkQj ds in gsrq 100 'kCn izfr fefuV ½ ijh{kk mRrh.kZ vFkok ,vkbZlhVhbZ ls ekU;rk izkIr iksyhVsfDud egkfo|ky; ls ekWMuZ vkfQl eSusteasV esa fMIyksek izek.k&i= vFkok e/;izns'k 'kklu }kjk fu/kkZfjr vU; fdlh laLFkku ls mRrh.kZ led{k ijh{kk] rFkk] ¼3-½ fuEufyf[kr ekU;rk izkIr laLFkkvksa esa ls fdlh ,d laLFkk ls dEI;wVj ijh{kk mRrh.kZ gksuks vko';d gS %& 1- Diploma from all Universities recognized by UGC.

2- Diploma from all open Universities recognized by UGC.

3- Diploma level examination from DOEACC.

4- Modern Office Management Course from Govt. Polytechnic College.

10. As per this clause, diploma holders in Modern Office Management from following institutions are held to be eligible :-

1. Diploma and certificate from a Polytechnic College recognized by AICTE.

2. Diploma in said subject from any other institution which is declared as equivalent by State Government.

3. Modern Office Management course from Government Polytechnic College.

11. It is true that respondent No.5 is established pursuant to a local Act namely "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyalaya" Adhiniyam ( Act No. 37 of 1995). It is in the approved list of UGC. The impugned rejection order (Annexure P/1) shows that rejection is based on following reasons :-

(i) Petitioners do not fulfill the eligibility conditions are per aforesaid rules.

(ii) Their diploma in Modern Office Management is of one year whereas diploma granted in the said subject by Polytechnic College or other other institutions is of three years.

(iii) Respondent No.5- University is not treated as equivalent by the State Government.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioners have taken pains to submit that petitioners have obtained diploma from respondent No.5 which is recognized by UGC. State Government by Ordinance No. 15 recognized the said certificate course. Even if it is true, this does not improve the case of the petitioner. The petitioners are required to establish their eligibility as per conditions mentioned and relevant rules reproduced above. It is apt to mention that the validity of said Rule is not under challenge. Thus, this Court is obliged to examine the qualification of the petitioner as such on the anvil of existing rules. As per said rules, the petitioners have failed to establish that their diploma in Modern Office Management is issued from any of such institution mentioned in para 11 above. Their certificate is neither issued by Govt. Polytechnic College nor by any other institution which is treated as equivalent by the State Government. Admittedly, the AICTE has not given recognition to the said course, run by respondent No.5-Mahirishi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyalaya.

13. Thus, I am unable to hold that petitioners fulfill the aforesaid eligibility conditions. Petitioners have also not denied that the said diploma course in AICTE recognized institution is for four years, whereas their diploma course is only for one year. Condition (3) 1 ,2 and 3 must be read with clause (3) of eligibility condition. A conjoint reading of these clauses will show that said clauses deal with computer education.

14. In view of aforesaid analysis, in my view, the respondents have not erred in rejecting the candidature of the petitioners. Petitions fail and are hereby dismissed.

The Registry is directed to keep a true copy of this order in all the connected matters.

(Sujoy Paul) Judge vv / sarathe