[Covid-19] All Pending UG, PG Final Semester Exams Cancelled In Odisha; Read Alternative Evaluation Scheme Here

first_imgNews Updates[Covid-19] All Pending UG, PG Final Semester Exams Cancelled In Odisha; Read Alternative Evaluation Scheme Here LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK28 Jun 2020 11:06 PMShare This – xIn view of the Covid crisis, the Higher Education Department of Odisha has cancelled the undergraduate and postgraduate final semester examinations for all State Public Universities and Autonomous Colleges, except for medical/ paramedical and pharmacy courses. Through a notification dated June 18, 2020, it is intimated that final year students whose examinations could not be…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginIn view of the Covid crisis, the Higher Education Department of Odisha has cancelled the undergraduate and postgraduate final semester examinations for all State Public Universities and Autonomous Colleges, except for medical/ paramedical and pharmacy courses. Through a notification dated June 18, 2020, it is intimated that final year students whose examinations could not be conducted, will be promoted on the basis of an “alternative evaluation method” by August, 2020. Alternative evaluation method Marks for Final Year/Final Semester papers will be awarded as per the below given formula: Marks to be awarded for Final Year/Final Semester papers = (Internal Mark as per Prescribed Weightage) + (Practical Mark as per Prescribed Weightage, if applicable) + (Average of marks obtained in all previous semesters/years in the corresponding papers of that subject, for the remaining weightage) Where Practical examination has not been conducted, the average of marks obtained in Practical Papers of all previous semesters/years in the corresponding Practical Papers of that subject will be awarded as the Practical examination mark for Final Year/Final Semester Dissertation/ Project/ Internally Evaluated Papers shall be evaluated by the internal examiners out of full marks allotted for the papers. Note: The alternative evaluation method shall not be applicable for universities and colleges where the examinations have already conducted. In such cases, the normal evaluation method shall be followed. Grievances The Department has stated that in case of any grievance with the above mentioned method, the students may appear in a special examination, which will be conducted by Universities/ Autonomous Colleges by November, 2020 and the results of the same will be declared by December, 2020. “The final result mark sheet shall be revised as per the student’s performance in the special examination, irrespective of whether s/he secures more or less mark than what is awarded to him through alternative evaluation method,” the notification states. Back Papers The Department has clarified that pending back paper examinations for Final Year/ Final Semester students shall be cancelled, to a maximum two back papers. Students, who have more than two Back Papers, will have to appear in the regular examination in all the Back Papers. For UG and PG Intermediate Semesters/ Year Examinations, 2020 students The Department has decided that the intermediate even Semesters/ Year Examination shall not be held for the current academic session 2019-20. The students of the aforesaid semesters/ year(s) shall be automatically promoted to next semesters/ Year for 2020-21 academic session, on the basis of an alternative evaluation method to be decided by the Universities and Colleges themselves, as per their Examination Regulations, conforming to UGC guidelines. However, Back Paper examination shall be held as usual. In case of Yearly system (Annual) of examination, there will be regular examinations for the Ist year students of 2019-2020 session as per schedule to be notified by the University/College. Click Here To Download Notification Read Notification Subscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Storylast_img read more

Unemployment rate increases one-tenth to 5.8 percent

first_imgThe Vermont Department of Labor announced today the seasonally adjusted statewide unemployment rate for calendar year 2010 trended down by nine tenths of a percentage point.  The year ended with a seasonally adjusted unemployment rate of 5.8 percent which was a tenth of a percent higher than the November rate.  This final over the month change was the only increase in 2010.  It was preceded by a mix of five months of no change and six declines in the statewide unemployment rate. ‘The growth in the Vermont labor force outpaced the growth in total employment in the last month of 2010,’ said Annie Noonan, Commissioner of the Vermont Department of Labor.  ‘Historically, early periods of economic expansion have been occasionally marked by temporary increases to the unemployment rate as individuals return to the labor force seeking work, but in advance of actually have secured employment.  We anticipate this to be one of those periods as economic data continues to suggest a slow but positive trend towards economic recovery.  Overall, as we look back, the performance of the Vermont economy exceeded expectations in 2010,’ Noonan concluded.Analysis of Job Changes by IndustryThe preliminary ‘not seasonally adjusted’ jobs numbers for December show an increase of 3,050 jobs when compared to the revised November numbers.  This reported over the month change does not include the 600 job increase between the preliminary and the revised November estimates due to the revision process and the inclusion of more sample data.  As detailed in the preliminary December data, Total Private reports an increase of 3,100 jobs and Government reports a minor decrease of 50 jobs.  In the private sector, the industries with notable increases were Leisure and Hospitality (+4,700 jobs) and Manufacturing (+300 jobs).  Construction (-1,300 jobs) and Trade, Transportation, and Utilities (-500 jobs) reported the largest nominal declines.Based on the preliminary December data, the annual rate of unadjusted job growth returned to negative territory this month (-0.1%).  This is a decline from the revised November estimate by two tenths of a percent. The seasonally adjusted data for December reports a decrease of 1,100 jobs from the revised November data.  As with the ‘not seasonally adjusted’ data, this over the month change is from the revised November numbers which experienced a positive revision from the preliminary November estimates (+700 jobs).  A review of the seasonally adjusted December numbers shows Vermont’s Private Industries with a job decline of 800 jobs.  Trade, Transportation, and Utilities (-500), Educational and Health Services (-500) and Construction (-400) reported the largest job losses by industry.  As for advancing industries, Leisure and Hospitality (+800) and Manufacturing (+400 jobs) led the way with positive increases in the seasonally adjusted data.  Total Government declined by 300 jobs from the revised November counts.   State of Vermont OverviewVermont’s seasonally adjusted unemployment rate increased one tenth of a percent to 5.8 percent in December.   The underlying data showed increases to the labor force (+1,200), total employment (+1,000), and to total unemployment (+200).  For comparison purposes, the United States seasonally adjusted unemployment rate for December showed a four tenths of a percent decrease to 9.4 percent. December unemployment rates for Vermont’s 17 labor market areas ranged from 3.8 percent in Warren-Waitsfield to 8.3 percent in Newport.  Local labor market area unemployment rates are not seasonally adjusted. For comparison, the December unadjusted unemployment rate for Vermont was 5.6 percent, which was one tenth of a percentage point lower than the revised November data and down one percentage point from a year ago.last_img read more

Court retools professionalism program course requirements

first_img June 1, 2005 Managing Editor Regular News Court retools professionalism program course requirements Mark D. Killian Managing Editor To establish a basic level of professionalism, the Supreme Court has amended Bar rules to require new Bar members — even those in government service — to take the Young Lawyers Division’s Practicing With Professionalism program.Originally set up in 1988 as a mandatory basic skills course — Bridge-the-Gap — to ensure newly admitted lawyers had an opportunity to begin their careers with some practical understanding of the practice of law, it has evolved over the years to focus on professionalism and ethics issues. The court acted May 12 in response to a Bar petition to amend the rules to reflect that reality. Case no. SC04-914.The court amended the rules to codify that the PWP will be one day in length (the old Bridge-the-Gap was a two-day program) and allow new lawyers to complete the course up to 12 months before admission to the Bar (formerly eight) or 12 months after being admitted. The court also changed the rules to increase the required number of elective, basic substantive CLE programs offered by the YLD from two to three that new members’ must take durring their initial three-year CLE reporting cycle.“I think this is a big victory for all Florida lawyers because the court finally in an opinion identified professionalism as a compelling interest,” said YLD President Michael Faehner, adding the division will work with representatives from government lawyers groups to fine-tune the specifics of the professionalism program.The division also will begin discussions about putting on more basic-level substantive courses to meet the anticipated greater demand, Faehner said.In its petition, the Bar said much of the prior criticism directed toward the PWP was that it contained too much substantive material that was inapplicable to many lawyers’ practices, particularly those of government lawyers. The Bar contended that by reducing the PWP to one day and eliminating the substantive materials, the professionalism and ethics portions could be refocused to apply to all new lawyers, regardless of their practice.“Because the amount of time that new Bar members spend in a course dedicated to ethics and professionalism has been reduced, we conclude that it is logical to compensate for the time taken out of the PWP by requiring attendance at an additional basic YLD course, where the attorney can select the most relevant subject matter,” the court said.The court also amended the rules to no longer to exempt full-time government employees from attending the PWP, but did adopt a “grandfather clause” that leaves the deferral in place for certain government employees and exempts others from the PWP altogether. The rules now provide that full-time government employees who were deferred from the PWP requirement at the time of the amendment to the rule continue to be eligible for the deferment as long as they continuously remain in government practice. Those employees who were deferred from the PWP requirement at the time of the amendment to the rule and had already or thereafter served for six years in governmental practice are also granted the exemption.As amended, the rule continues to allow full-time government employees to defer the requirement that they attend three basic YLD courses. However, the rules were further changed to completely exempt from the three basic YLD courses those members who have been continuously engaged in the practice of law for a Florida or federal governmental entity as a full-time employee for a period of at least six years.“In eliminating the deferral of government employees from the PWP requirement, we find that the Bar has a compelling interest in informing its new members of vital information and explanations necessary for the practice of law in Florida,” the court said. “Further, we conclude that in order for government lawyers to receive the best professionalism training possible, they must hear the views of private sector lawyers.”The court said the purpose of the revisions is to foster a community of professionalism that transcends practice area. Court retools professionalism program course requirementslast_img read more