Good Morning

Thursday, March 17, 2016

High Court takes a year to reply to RTI application

High Court takes a year to reply to RTI application

HINDU

An applicant under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 here is shocked over the Registrar (Administration)-cum-Public Information Officer of the Madras High Court having taken nearly a year to reject an application made by him though the legislation imposes a statutory duty to reply within 30 days of receipt of the application.

M. Sivasankar, an advocate, had made the application on February 14 last year wanting to know the status of a complaint of corruption lodged by one K. Sakrapani of Madurai against a judicial officer in Erode district on September 10, 2014.

Replying to it on February 17 this year, PIO V. Devanathan conceded to have received the application on February 19 last.

Nevertheless, without giving any reason for taking so long, the PIO stated: “Since the information sought is in respect of a complaint made against the judicial officer and since you are a third party to the said complaint, the information could not be furnished.”

The reply also does not provide details of the appellate authority, to whom an appeal could be preferred, as required under Section 8(ii) and (iii) of the Act.

Wondering how could the PIO of a High Court give such a reply, the applicant feared that it might set a bad precedent to the PIOs of government departments. “At the first place, the information sought by me may not fall under ‘third party information’ since I did not seek personal details of the judicial officer such as his blood group or Income Tax returns. I only wanted to know status of a corruption complaint against him.

“Even if the PIO had concluded that the information sought was ‘third party information,’ then he should have rejected my request within 30 days of receiving the application or followed the procedures, prescribed under Section 11 of the Act, of issuing a notice to the judicial officer concerned and wanting to know if he had any objection to disclosing the information,” the applicant said.

He pointed out that the Act stipulated a specific time limit for every act done under it and, therefore, there could be no justification for the long delay of one year taken by the PIO to reject the RTI application.

High Court ruling on compassionate employment

17.3.2016

HINDU

The Madras High Court Bench here has directed Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage (TWAD) Board to appoint on compassionate ground a person who was a minor at the time of his father’s death in harness in 2007 but still made an application for a job through his mother in order to comply with the condition of staking a claim for the benefit within three years of death.

Allowing a writ petition filed by M. Sugadev of Dindigul district, Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana held that TWAD Board should not have “mechanically” rejected a second application made by the writ petitioner in 2014, after attaining majority, on the ground that compassionate employment could not be granted to a person below the age of 18 years as per a Government Order issued in 2010.

The judge quashed an order passed by the Managing Director of TWAD Board on June 15, 2015 rejecting the petitioner’s plea for compassionate employment and directed the official to consider the application within four weeks and “provide an appropriate appointment” because already eight years had passed since the demise of his father A. Muthusamy who served as an Assistant Executive Engineer.

She agreed with the petitioner’s counsel, R. Karunanithi, that the TWAD Board Managing Director ought not to have cited the petitioner’s age in 2007 as a reason for rejecting the second application made in 2014.

Stating that the petitioner was born in March 1993, the counsel said that the claimant was 15 years old at the time of his father’s death and 21 years old while making the second application.

Clarity sought on UGC notification

HINDU
Clarity sought on UGC notification

A recent notification by the University Grants Commission to vice chancellors of all universities has confused professors, including administrative authorities.

In a notification to Vice- Chancellors dated March 1, the UGC said that “the period of active service spent on pursuing research degree, i.e. for acquiring Ph.D degree simultaneously without taking any kind of leave may be counted as teaching experience for the purpose of direct recruitment/promotion to the post of associate professor and above.”

On the face of it, the notification seems to address an issue involving candidates pursuing Ph.D degree.

But, the Association of University Teachers members point out that it would not apply to the State as the government had already issued an order, recognising a Ph.D scholar’s effort with several incentives and a few years’ remission in service at the entry level itself.

UGC’s Vice Chairman H. Devaraj said the notification was for those who entered service with NET/SET scores but take extraordinary periods of leave during research.

Private firms, individuals can't use jammers: Government ECONOMIC TIMES

Private firms, individuals can't use jammers: Government

ECONOMIC TIMES

PTI Jul 17, 2015, 04.51PM IST

NEW DELHI: Private firms and individuals cannot buy or use jammers in the country whereas security agencies have to give details of threat perception to a VIP being secured by them and get prior permission of authorities before using the equipment, according to fresh norms set out by the government.

Under the new policy, the jammers can be procured only by defence forces, state police departments, jail authorities and central government security agencies.

Prior permission of Secretary (Security) in Cabinet Secretariat must be obtained before procurement of jammers, it said.

The new norms bar examination conducting bodies to procure jammers. They will have to go through an authorised PSU vendor if they require jammers.

The statutory examination conducting bodies are allowed to deploy low-powered jammers to prevent unfair means during examinations. "They would be given permission only to take it on lease or rent basis from authorised PSU and would therefore have to pay for using jammers as per the contractual obligation with the PSU vendor," it said.

These norms take into account the need to guard against random proliferation of jammers as well as to ensure that jammers installed do not unduly interfere with the existing mobile phone networks and with the equipment being used by security agencies, the Cabinet Secretariat said.

The new policy bars import of jammers without requiring a license from Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT).

Jammer models manufactured by M/s ECIL and M/s BEL, which are evaluated by concerned security agencies, can be procured.

However, central or state PSUs, wanting to manufacture jammers, can apply to the Secretariat giving details of the model, the source of technology and other relevant information, it said.

"Inviting open tender from unauthorised manufacturers is a violation of the policy of Government of India in matters of procurement of jammers," the Secretariat said.

For seeking prior permission for installation of jammers in jails, the total number of jammers required for installation in prisons need to be assessed by jail authorities in consultation with the local office of the wireless adviser, Department of Telecommunications, before the proposal is submitted for seeking approval, it said.

Any central or state government undertaking, with requisite manufacturing capability and necessary technology can request for registration as a jammer manufacturer after getting mandatory clearances.

Wednesday, March 16, 2016