K L Rahul, Hooda power Punjab Kings to 221/6 against RR
Mumbai, Apr 12: KL Rahul and Deepak Hooda pummelled the Rajasthan Royals bowlers into submission with their sensational stroke play, propelling Punjab Kings to an imposing 221 for six in the IPL here on Monday.
While Rahul smashed seven fours and five sixes in his 50-ball 91, Hooda, playing his first game since the last IPL, plundered six maximums and four boundaries as he blazed his way to 64 off just 28 balls.
Put into bat, Punjab lost opener Mayank Agarwal (14) early, who edged it back to Royals captain and wicketkeeper Sanju Samson for IPL debutant Chetan Sakariya's first wicket.
He ended being the pick of the bowlers, conceding only five runs in the 20th over.
Rahul, who got his first four with a glance to the fine-leg fence, and Chris Gayle (40 off 28) gave the team a good start with their 67-run stand.
Rahul got a life' after Ben Stokes dropped him at the fence in the seventh over even as Gayle, looked in his elements.
The duo then took on Stokes, as Gayle hit his 350th IPL six, a pull over deep square in the 8th over with Punjab racing to 70 for one.
Gayle was dropped by leggie Rahul Tewatia (0/25) off his own bowling and the very next ball, the left-hander smashed a six.
However, in the 10th over, Riyan Parag (1/7) removed Gayle, who was holed out to Stokes in the deep.
Rahul then changed gears and got to his fifty with a six over Shivam Dube's (0/20) head in the 13th over.
Hooda then smashed two maximums in the same over and then struck three sixes off Shreyas Gopal (0/40) in the next as Punjab went ballistic.
It was Rahul and Hooda's show at the Wankhede that made the difference to their total as the duo tore into the opposition attack on way to to their 105-run stand.
Courtesy their monstrous hitting, Punjab added 111 runs in the final eight overs.
Hooda, who had made a 62 against CSK in his last competitive game in November, had stormed out of the Baroda camp ahead of the Syed Mushtaq Ali Trophy after claiming that Krunal Pandya misbehaved with him. Hooda was subsequently suspended.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
SC directs high courts to frame rules on court managers
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Friday directed all high courts to either frame or amend rules on the functioning of court managers and submit it to the respective states for approval within three months.
The concept of court managers was first proposed by the Thirteenth Finance Commission (2010-2015) with the aim of providing assistance to judges in performing their administrative duties.
Court managers were to be appointed in both district courts and high courts.
A bench of Chief Justice B R Gavai, Justices Augustine George Masih and K Vinod Chandran said the high courts should frame or amend rules taking cue from Assam Rules of 2018.
"We further direct that upon receipt of the rules framed or amendments thereof by the high courts, the respective state governments shall finalise and grant approval to the same within a further period of three months," the bench said in its verdict on the issue.
The top court said the high courts and the state governments had the liberty to make suitable modifications or changes to suit their peculiar needs.
It clarified that the minimum rank of court managers should be of a class-II gazetted officer for the purpose of basic pay, allowances and other service benefits.
"We direct that all the high courts in the country shall frame or amend the rules providing for recruitment and conditions of service of court managers, by taking the Assam Rules of 2018 as the model rules, and submit it to the state government for approval within a period of three months from the date of this judgment," the bench said.
Court managers appointed in high courts should work under the directions and supervision of the registrar general or registrars of the high court, it added.
The bench said court managers appointed in district courts should work under the supervision of the registrars or superintendents of the courts concerned.
"While determining the duties, functions and the responsibilities of the court managers, the rules committee of the high courts shall ensure that their duties, functions and responsibilities do not overlap with that of the registrars of the high court/district courts," it said.
The bench said court managers, who are already working either on contractual or consolidated pay basis or on adhoc basis, should continue to offer services and be regularised subject to their passing the suitability test which will be provided in the proposed rules.
Those court managers are who already working would be entitled to regularisation from the date of their initial appointment, it added.
The bench directed that the process of regularisation of court managers will be completed within three months from the date of approval of the rules by the respective states.
"We clarify that the respective registrar generals of the high courts and the chief secretaries of the state governments shall be personally responsible for adhering to the aforesaid timelines," it said.
The bench referred to the apex court's August 2018 verdict which discussed about the need of sound infrastructure in subordinate courts.
The role and importance of court managers, the bench said, was also discussed in the verdict.
The bench said a direction was also given that already functioning court managers must be regularised by the states as their assistance was found essential for a proper administrative setup in courts.
In its February 2022 report, the Second National Judicial Pay Commission (SNJPC) underlined various aspects of judicial administration, including the role of court managers.
The report recommended the appointment of court managers to handle non-judicial functions, allowing judges to focus on their core judicial responsibilities.
According to affidavits filed in the top court, some high courts had finalised the rules for court managers approved by the respective states.
The bench said rules prepared by some high courts were pending approval of the state concerned and added, "It is further noticed that few of the high courts are yet to even frame the rules."
The bench said perusal of the existing rules showed no uniform practice was adopted by the high courts and states in framing and implementing the rules regarding court managers.
"We are at pains to say that even though the SNJPC in its report had recommended and this court in the judgment dated August 2, 2018 in the present proceedings had specifically directed the rules to be framed for determining the service conditions, the duties, etc., of court managers, various high courts and various state governments have not yet complied with the said direction," it said.
