Explanation:

Constitutional provision for Equal Treatment
Article 16 of the Constitution guarantees equal treatment under the law in matters of public employment. It prohibits the state from discriminating on grounds of place of birth or residence.
Article 16(2) states that “no citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect of, any employment or office under the State”.
The provision is supplemented by the other clauses in the Constitution that guarantee equality.
However, Article 16(3) of the Constitution provides an exception by saying that Parliament may make a law “prescribing” a requirement of residence for jobs in a particular state.
This power vests solely in the Parliament, not state legislatures.
Why does the Constitution prohibit reservation based on domicile?
When the Constitution came into force, India turned itself into one nation from a geographical unit of individual principalities and the idea of the universality of Indian citizenship took root.
India has single citizenship, and it gives citizens the liberty to move around freely in any part of the country.
Hence the requirement of a place of birth or residence cannot be qualifications for granting public employment in any state.
But are reservations not granted on other grounds such as caste?
Equality enshrined in the Constitution is not mathematical equality and does not mean all citizens will be treated alike without any distinction.
To this effect, the Constitution underlines two distinct aspects which together form the essence of equality law:
Non-discrimination among equals, and
Affirmative action to equalize the unequal
Supreme Court rulings on quota for locals
The Supreme Court has ruled against reservation based on place of birth or residence.
In 1984, ruling in Dr Pradeep Jain v Union of India, the issue of legislation for “sons of the soil” was discussed.
The court expressed an opinion that such policies would be unconstitutional but did not expressly rule on it as the case was on different aspects of the right to equality.
In a subsequent ruling in Sunanda Reddy v State of Andhra Pradesh (1995), the Supreme Court affirmed the observation in 1984 ruling to strike down a state government policy that gave 5% extra weightage to candidates.
In 2002, the Supreme Court invalidated appointment of government teachers in Rajasthan in which the state selection board gave preference to “applicants belonging to the district or the rural areas of the district concerned”.
In 2019, the Allahabad HC struck down a recruitment notification by the UP PSC which prescribed preference for women who are “original residents” of the UP alone.
What about securing jobs for locals in the private sector?
Such a law will be difficult to implement even if allowed.
Private employers do not go on an annual recruitment drive to fill vacancies identified in advance but hire as and when required.
The state can recommend a preference to locals but ensuring that it is followed would be difficult.
In 2017, Karnataka mulled similar legislation but it was dropped after the state’s Advocate General raised questions on its legality.
In 2019, the state government once again issued a notification asking private employers to “prefer” Kannadigas for blue-collar jobs.
How do some states then have laws that reserve jobs for locals?
Exercising the powers it has under Article 16(3), Parliament enacted the Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Act.
The act aimed at abolishing all existing residence requirements in the states and enacting exceptions only in the case of the special instances of Andhra Pradesh, Manipur, Tripura and Himachal Pradesh.
Constitutionally, some states also have special protections under Article 371. AP under Section 371(d) has powers to have “direct recruitment of local cadre” in specified areas.
Some states have gone around the mandate of Article 16(2) by using language. States that conduct official business in their regional languages prescribe knowledge of the language as a criterion.
This ensures that local citizens are preferred for jobs. For example, states including Maharashtra, West Bengal and Tamil Nadu require a language test.

Explanation:

National Recruitment Agency
NRA will be a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, headed by a Chairman of the rank of the Secretary to the Government of India.
It will have representatives of the Ministry of Railways, Ministry of Finance/Department of Financial Services, the SSC, RRB and IBPS.
It is envisioned that the NRA would be a specialist body bringing the state-of-the-art technology and best practices to the field of Central Government recruitment.
The NRA will conduct the Common Eligibility Test (CET) for recruitment to non-gazetted posts in government and public sector banks.
This test aims to replace multiple examinations conducted by different recruiting agencies for selection to government jobs advertised each year, with a single online test.

Explanation:

India’s ranking: Hits and Misses

India occupies 79th place, ranking below countries including Guatemala and Sri Lanka.
India makes it into the top 10 in terms of Internet affordability. With a ranking of nine, it outperforms countries such as the U.K., the U.S. and China.
Additionally, when it comes to e-government, India occupies the 15th place globally, just below countries like New Zealand and Italy.
However, at position 78, India’s Internet quality is one of the lowest across 85 countries analysed in the research.

Global rankings

The report found that seven of the 10 countries with the highest digital quality of life are in Europe, with Denmark leading among 85 countries.
Canada stands out as a country with the highest digital quality of life in the Americas, while Japan takes the leading position in Asia.
Among the countries in Africa, people in South Africa enjoy the highest quality of digital lives whereas New Zealand leads in Oceania, outperforming Australia in various digital areas.

Highlights of the ARIIA 2020
The Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Madras has topped the ARIIA 2020 under the ‘Best Centrally Funded Institution’ category.
Last year too, the institute emerged as the top innovative institution in the country.
IIT Bombay and Delhi have secured the second and third spots, respectively.
About ARIIA
ARIIA is an initiative of erstwhile Ministry of HRD, implemented by AICTE and Ministry’s Innovation Cell.
It systematically ranks all major higher educational institutions and universities in India on indicators related to “Innovation and Entrepreneurship Development” amongst students and faculties.
ARIIA 2020 will have six categories which also includes special category for women only higher educational institutions to encourage women and bringing gender parity in the areas of innovation and entrepreneurship.
The other five categories are 1) Centrally Funded Institutions 2) State-funded universities 3) State-funded autonomous institutions 4) Private/Deemed Universities and 5) Private Institutions.
Major Indicators for consideration
Budget & Funding Support.
Infrastructure & Facilities.
Awareness, Promotions & support for Idea Generation & Innovation.
Promotion & Support for Entrepreneurship Development.
Innovative Learning Methods & Courses.
Intellectual Property Generation, Technology Transfer & Commercialization.
Innovation in Governance of the Institution.

Explanation:

Under 1935 Act, the Governor General was authorized to act in his discretion and under certain other provisions; he could exercise his individual judgment. He was vested with the final political authority in the country; and was given widest discretionary powers and special responsibilities. These functions and powers were defined by the Act as his special responsibilities. In Government of India Act 1935 the discretionary powers and responsibilities of Governor General are as follows:

1. Under Govt. Act of India 1935, he was in charge of the Reserve Departments of Defence, Foreign Affairs, Ecclesiastical Affairs and Tribal Areas and he appoint three councillors to assist him in his work.

2. He could appoint and dismiss the Council of Ministers and also could preside over their meetings. They would hold office during his pleasure. Their consultation and advice was not binding upon him.

3. He could issue two kinds of ordinances. One type of ordinance he could issue at any time and that lasted for 6 months. The other kind of ordinance would be issued when the legislature was not in session.

4. The Governor General was also given the power to issue what were known as Governor General Act. But these had to be forwarded to the Secretary of State.

5. The previous of Governor General was required for the introduction of certain bills in the Federal Legislature and the Provincial Legislatures: He was authorized to stop discussion on any bill at any time by the legislature. He could withhold his assent to a bill passed by the Legislature or send the same back for the consideration of His Majesty.

6. He was given control over 80% of the Federal budget; the non-vote able items of the budget formed a major part of the budget.

7. The Governor General could in his discretion send any instructions to the Governors and it was the special responsibility of the later to carry them out.

8. Governor General could suspend the Constitution.

9. In Government of India Act 1935 Governor General was given the authority to summon, prorogue and dissolve the Federal Assembly lie could summon both the houses for joint sitting. He could address the Legislatures and could send messages regarding certain bills.