We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
I can't help but feel that there was a certain dissatisfaction in at least one of these cases. When you favour certain mediocre people and make them de facto rulers of Jindal, but overlook the deserving ones, at some point the deserving ones will snap. Especially when they are even paid less. Supporters of the VC will say that they are leaving to head law schools and would have left anyway. I don't think so, because these are lower tier law schools. Given a choice between being a player in the Indian cricket team and the captain of a Ranji team, which would you prefer? The answer is the former, but perhaps not if you are perpetually made the 12th man in the Indian team and the Indian team management keeps selecting underperformers instead of you.