What’s the latest on the case of the government’s first-grade polytechnics?

The government’s decision to grant a contract for the Polytechnic of the Republic of India (PUJI) for women’s college in Jharkhand was the subject of a scathing media backlash on Wednesday.

The controversy started when the PUKI, an official government agency, decided to award the contract to the Pukriya Polytechnics, an association that has over 60 campuses.

However, the PPUJi, the agency’s executive board, rejected the deal, saying the school was under no obligation to accept the government grant and would not have to pay its salary.

The PPUjis decision came after the government issued a notice in the Supreme Court saying that it would not grant the contract for women in the government polytechnies.

The PPUji has appealed against the decision.

The government’s move came as the PUC, the central government agency for the promotion of women in higher education, said it would hold a forum to discuss the Pukiya contract.

PUC president and former education minister M K Bhagwat said the decision was a response to the pressure that the PUSJI, which is part of the PUPJI family, had exerted on the PUJI.

The decision of the Ministry of Women, Family and Social Welfare was based on the following factors:The PUKIs decision to award a contract to a private organization and the fact that the institution was already under no financial obligation and was not under any financial obligation to pay salaries to the employees, the board had said in its notice in a high court order dated November 20.

The board had also said that the private organization had been given the right to select the students who would be taught in the university, and was required to submit the same.

The other factors in the notice included the fact the contract was awarded to a consortium of four private institutions and the government was the only party responsible for all the costs of the project.

The ministry said that it had also submitted an amendment to the contract and requested that the board should reconsider the decision as the board did not have the right or the obligation to appoint the students and their families.

The petitioners have filed a fresh notice before the Supreme Judicial Tribunal (SJT), seeking a fresh hearing.