“To protect monuments, places, and objects of artistic or historic interest” is a provision made under
: (a) Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy
(b) Directive Principles of State Policy only
(c) Fundamental Duties only
(d) Directive Principles of State Policy and Fundamental Duties
I need a little help here... I think answer should be (d)
But it is wrong as per key. why?
b)
Both statements are correct, IMO.
Yes, answer is both correct . Can you shed more light on secular aspect of IVC as there were evidences of Great bath @Mohenjodaro which was most probably used for religious ceremonies.
Thanks. Can somebody list down the errors/exceptions in Laxmikant/any other standard book? This will save time.
What is in 5th schedule which have bearing on education except the fact that there should be tribes advisory council and safeguard interest of scheduled Tribes and administer scheduled areas.
W.r.t. 6th schedule, there is specific mention about creation, construction and management of primary schools.
I have doubt w.r.to. option 3. The dispute b/w GoI and UT like NCT of Delhi gone to SC and in case of Puducherry in Madras HC, are these not come under original jurisdiction of SC, though Laxmikant doesn't have that mention.
The High Court stands at the head of a State's judicial administration. There are 24 High Courts in the country, three having jurisdiction over more than one State. Among the Union Territories Delhi alone has a High Court of its own. Other six Union Territories come under the jurisdiction of different State High Courts.
Now, wrt to the issue with Delhi's case: SC refused to straightaway hear the original suit filed by the Delhi government against the Centre under the article 131 seeking a declaration of changed status from union territory to a state for Delhi.
The bench wanted to delay the hearing because it wanted to hear it along with the Delhi government’s appeal against the Delhi high court’s judgment on August 4 which held that Delhi’s status was that of a union territory.
So first it has to go to HC. SC doesn't have original jurisdiction.
One change- 25th HC of Andhra Pradesh
+1
It is really get to see your enthusiastically answer the questions, sire!
When I was selected for a certain govt job, long back, I quickly checked who the appointing authority was. It was the Central Govt. The appointment letter was signed by Additional or Under Secy Rural Development.
What does this mean?
This means that anytime the Central Govt wanted , they could remove me with just a letter signed by the Secy, Rural Development.
When you are appointed to the All India Services, the appointment is by the President, who , is also the authority who can remove such officials.
This means that if the govt quickly wants to remove someone, they have send the letter to President. While the President is bound to follow the advice, note that President may apply his mind to such recommendations. Or even sit on it for a long time ( The pocket of Indian President , as you may have read is deeper than the American President ). So it is not easy for central govts to remove someone appointed by the President. If for some reason that President is not happy, he may require additional information from the Govt.
So this makes a lot of difference.
Also, with respect to submission of reports, if a Constitutional Body is there, then it is most likely to submit its report to the President than the Govt. That additional layer of having the President takes away a lot of whims and facies of the govt in effect.
Please also note that when governments are in absolute majority, neither the President not the Supreme Courts are able to withstand executive pressure.
Sir does that mean security of appointment in the ascending order would be (in case of central govt appointments): central govt
Also sir, governor is appointed by President, but his removal depends on whims of the President (cabinet)? How does that mean that appointment by President guarantees more security then?
AIS Appointment by Prez + Art 312 = Best protection for Civil Servants in India
Governor is not a civil servant under Art 312 protection, hence can't be compared. Though ideally it should not be the case !
IMO if Sarkaria commission's recomm regarding Governor is implemented then many of the current issues could be resolved, but catch is no one willing to share power only it's usurpation
@upsc2020Screenshot_20200820-140230_Chrome.jpg plz read second line but wht s commonly known tht conservation reserves r declared by state govt,was pointing 2 ths.
2.Eminent jurists rnt appointed as HC judge r8??
3.Does money bill introduction need susbtantive motion?
4.
Screenshot_20200820-140230_Chrome.jpg
4) d ?
Answer to Question 40 is given as “C” in the key. The wetland rules incorporated Wise Use philosophy which is a recommendation of Ramsar. Why would statement 2 be wrong? Matlab kuch bhi!!
I think UPSC took general stance like National Biodiversity Act based on CBD. Coaching keys provided 2 and 3 to be correct.
