Dear Divya, Can u send the application copy to mahitiadhikarma...@gmail.com as a speciman to do something in Mumbai. Bhaskar
On 3/18/09, DivyaJyoti Jaipuriar, Advocate <jaipur...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear All, > > > > An RTI application was filed in the Delhi High Court seeking information on > the *Class III and Class IV employees* recruited by the Delhi High Court > from 1990 till 2000, whether any *advertisements* were issued for their > recruitment and whether any *tests/interviews* were conducted. The response > to the application from the Public Information Officer, Delhi High Court > indicates, that vacant positions were *not always* advertised nor > interviews/tests conducted, whereas on the other hand several hundred > temporary and adhoc appointments were made over this period. This goes to > expose the complete violation of all rules of fairness and just procedure > in > recruitment and appointment at the Delhi High Court. > > > > As a follow up, an RTI application has been filed in the Delhi High Court > seeking information on *what policy and procedures* are laid down for > making > appointments of Cl. III and IV staff and what procedures were followed in > making the appointments. A similar application is being filed in the > Supreme > Court as well. > > > > Please find *below* an article by Srawan Shukla that features in the March > edition of *Tehelka (Seats of Nepotism)* which exposes how rules have been > bent to appoint well-connected persons in the Allahabad and Lucknow High > Court Benches. > > > > The practice of backdoor entry through ad-hoc appointments may well be > rampant in all the High Courts for years now.* We therefore urge you you > take up filing similar RTI *applications (please find copy attached) in > High > Courts across the country which may well expose the recruitment scam within > the walls of the High Courts, bring to account such arbitrary and unchecked > exercise of power and help restore public faith in these institutions of > justice. > > > > Kindly write in to us indicating the High Court in which you are filing > this > application. A draft copy of the application is available on the website > www.judicialreforms.org. You may also get in touch with us on > +91-9958146804 > for more details. > > > > Best Regards, > > Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar > > on behalf of > > Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reform, > Mobile: 9958146804 > E-mail:judicialrefo...@gmail.com <e-mail%3ajudicialrefo...@gmail.com> < > e-mail%3ajudicialrefo...@gmail.com <e-mail%253ajudicialrefo...@gmail.com>> > website: www.judicialreforms.org > > > > > *From Tehelka Magazine, Vol 6, Issue 9, Dated Mar 07, 2009** > > > http://www.tehelka.com/story_main41.asp?filename=Ne070309seats_of.asp* > > > > *Seats Of Nepotism * > > *Rules have been bent to appoint well-connected persons in the Allahabad > and > Lucknow High Court Benches, reports **SRAWAN SHUKLA* > > *Courts of contention **The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court is > also under fire for 'illegal' clerical appointments* > > ON APRIL 17, 2004, when the Allahabad High Court (AHC) put out an > advertisement for 79 clerical vacancies, 23- year-old DK Pandey thought > himself as good a candidate as any for a government job with a pay packet > in > the Rs 3,050 to Rs 4,590-plus-allowances range. He applied along with over > 32,500 others. They didnt stand a chance. Not for a lack of qualification, > or even because of the competition involved. Instead, it was the entrenched > nepotism at the AHC that would effectively choke any possibility of a > normal > applicants advance. > > *RELATIVE CONTROVERSY* > > *Relatives of HC officials who have been appointed* > > *Anand Pal Singh, *Son of Balwant Singh, Section Officer, Accounts > > *Santosh Kumar,* Son of Anmol Tiwari, Asst Registrar (Protocol) > > *Sharad Kumar,* Son of Harish Kumar Srivastava, Stamp Reporter > > *Sandeep Kumar Ojha,* Son of KD Ojha, Jt Pvt Secretary to then CJ > > *Samya Deep,* Son of PK Ganguli, Jt Pvt Secretary to then CJ > > *B Pandey,* Related to CL Pandey, President, Bar Association > > *Tej Singh,* Brother of Hem Singh, Junior Vice-President, Employees Union > > *AK Srivastava,* Brother-in-law of YK Srivastava, Senior Vice- President, > Employees Union > > *AK Singh,* Nephew, Jokhan Singh, Principal Private Secretary to CJ > > *Nanda Priya, *Daughter of CP Bharti, Assistant Registrar, HC > > *Puja Srivastava, *Daughter of Sushil Srivastava, Asst Registrar, High > Court > > *Rohit Kumar Singh,* Nephew of Swatantra Singh, ex-High Court Registrar > > *Abhishek,* Son of Kailash Nath, Bench Secretary, High Court > > *KS Bedi, *Nephew of KS Rakra, then Registrar General, later HC judge > > The advertisement, it turned out, was just a formality. Instead of holding > the mandatory written examination to begin the selection process, the AHC > filled the posts with ad-hoc appointments made under the then Chief Justice > and the then Acting Chief Justice, using the extraordinary powers bestowed > on them by Rules 41 and 45 of the service Rules of 1976. This was done in > total disregard of the Supreme Court ruling that states that these powers > are not unguided and unlimited, and have to be exercised keeping in view > the Constitutional rights of the citizens and also be in consonance with > the > law. As many as 50 ad-hoc appointments were made in the clerical cadre of > the High Court services. The strategy is one that has been used in > government offices time and again: make ad-hoc appointments of > well-connected persons and later regularise their services bypassing > further > screening. > > But Pandey chose to fight back, filing a writ petition in 2004, challenging > the appointments legality. His petition has blown the lid off a continuing > recruitment scam at the AHC, with Pandey alleging that a whole host of > senior judicial officers in the AHC, from judges to Bar Association and > Employees Union office-bearers, are actively engaged in securing > employment > for their wards, relatives and acquaintances through backdoor channels in > both the Principal and the Lucknow Bench of the court. > > Founded in 1869, the AHC is the countrys largest high court and, after the > Calcutta High Court, the second oldest. Of its sanctioned strength of 95 > judges, 54 currently work in Allahabad and 18 on the courts Lucknow bench; > 23 posts are vacant. The AHC has an exclusive bureaucracy with nearly 2,500 > officers and employees, headed by the Registrar-General. > > Following Pandeys example, three petitions have been filed since 2004 > before the AHC, all raising questions over an illegal involvement in > recruitments on the part of at least two judges, a dozen court bureaucrats, > a personal secretary to former Chief Justices and the top office-bearers of > the Bar Association and the Employees Union. It is also alleged that a > former Chief Justice and an ex-Acting Chief Justice may have connived in > these unfair and arbitrary appointments. > > One such case was filed by 26-yearold Yogesh Verma, who is the son of a > sub-inspector in the Provincial Armed Constabulary and, like Pandey, > another > aggrieved applicant. For three years, he tried to persuade the AHC > authorities to hold a qualifying exam for the courts clerical cadre. When > pleading failed, he filed a public interest litigation in 2007, challenging > the appointments of 18 relatives and acquaintances of persons placed with > the court. > > I was well prepared for the exams, but merit, it seems, has no takers in > court, Verma rues. The case has got nowhere so far for the last two and > a > half years, Verma and his counsel have made the rounds of the Lucknow Bench > for the listing of the PIL, to no avail. The PIL had deliberately been put > in cold storage as it would have exposed the corrupt administrative > practices prevailing in the High Court, alleges Yogeshs counsel, Dinesh > Chandra Verma. > > Pandeys petition was to take several curious twists and turns. While the > defence not only argued that ad-hoc appointments were within the rights of > the Chief Justice, it also submitted that the Rules of 1976 had been > amended > and clerical posts had been upgraded to those of Assistant Review Officers > (AROs). The 2004 advertisement, thus, stood cancelled and, accordingly, a > fresh one was issued on July 31, 2006, for the recruitment of 150 AROs. > > Pandey stuck to his guns, however, and challenged the contention, stating > that neither had an amendment been made to the Rules of 1976 nor had > clerical posts been abolished till date. His stand has been vindicated by a > recent Government Order, No 3,477, dated February 5, 2009, by which 77 new > clerical posts have been sanctioned for the High Court. The 2006 > advertisement was issued to cover up the ongoing recruitment scam, says Om > Prakash, an AHC employee who has waged a long battle against nepotism in > the > court. Why were ad-hoc appointments allowed against regular vacancies in > the first place? > > It is a question Justice Sunil Ambwani raised in his order in Pandeys > case, > dated July 27, 2007. Putting to scrutiny the need for ad-hoc appointments > when regular selection was pending, Justice Ambwani observed: A large > number of appointments have been made in such unexplained exigencies that > are likely to raise apprehensions in the minds of aspirants and to believe > that the only method of appointments in the High Court is to gain proximity > to the Chief Justice. He also went on to remark: These ad-hoc > appointments > were not made by following any process of selection and were secured only > by > pleasing the then Chief Justices. > > Justice Ambwanis order confirms the nepotism prevalent in the AHC. > Adhocism raises suspicion and adhocism laced with favouritism confirms > arbitrariness, was the judges conclusion. > > BY THIS time, however, the AHC and its Lucknow bench had already > regularised > some of the contentious ad-hoc appointments, even though Pandeys petition > was still being heard. Among those regularised against the rules were made > permanent employees were Ashutosh Kumar Singh, Nanda Priya, Puja Srivastava > (2004 batch) and Abhishek and Karamjeet Singh Bedi, both of the 1999 batch > and nephews of then Registrar General KS Rakra, who was later elevated as a > High Court judge. Karamjeet was later promoted as Review Officer. > > These promotions caused sufficient annoyance among those whose seniority > had > been affected by the elevation of Ahishek and Karamjeet to prompt another > writ petition to be filed, this one in 2007, by Raj Kumar Yadav and 11 > others, challenging the backdoor appointments. The matter came before the > court of Justice DP Singh who, in an interim order on April 21, 2007, > ordered the sealing of all records pertaining to the two appointments. > Since > then, there has been no headway in the case. > > Our fight against the backdoor appointments and the arbitrary promotion of > those close to power will continue until we get justice and the practice is > ended in the Allahabad High Court, vows Ajit Singh Gaur, a co-petitioner > in > the case. > > *JUDGING THE JUDGES* > > *Actions of two former CJs are being scrutinised by the judiciary* > > *Sunil Ambwani* > In his order on Pandeys petition, he spoke of nepotism > > *Tarun Agarwala* > His stay order on hasty recruitment was overturned by a Constitutional > Bench > > *Vishnu Sahai* > Acting Chief Justice when appointments were made in 2004 > > *Tarun Chatterjee* > Was Chief Justice when ad-hoc appointments were made in 2004 > > ANOTHER CASE to come out of the irregularities in AHC recruitments pertains > to 355 Class IV court staff vacancies sanctioned by the Mulayam Singh Yadav > Government on December 10, 2004. Within three days, the then Acting Chief > Justice Vishnu Sahai had filled these vacancies, arbitrarily appointing > casual and daily wage Class IV employees working in the courts and at the > residences of various judges. > > Taking suo-motu notice of the irregularities in the appointments, a > Division > Bench comprising Justice VM Sahai and Justice Tarun Agarwala had strong > observations to make. Out of 355 posts, 192 posts have been earmarked for > the Lucknow Bench. It is surprising that about 19 judges hold court at > Lucknow and about 56 judges at Allahabad but the number of daily wage Class > IV employees is, alarmingly, very high at Lucknow It is not known how > these > persons have been recruited and appointed as daily wagers and who was > responsible for their recruitment. > > The Division Bench went on to stay the recruitment proceedings in its > interim order of December 17, 2004. The Bench fixed the next hearing in the > case for December 20, 2004, during which the Registrar General was to place > records of the appointments before the court. Before that could happen, > however, a hastily put together five-member Constitutional Bench got the > Division Benchs interim order vacated. The Constitutional Bench then > allowed the regularisation of the services of all the Class IV appointees, > subject to the final orders in the case. The matter, however, never came up > for hearing again for obvious reasons. When TEHELKA contacted him, > Justice > Sahai said he would not like to offer any comment on the Division Bench > judgment. We are not supposed to comment on our own judgments, he said. > > Interestingly, the formalities for all these appointments were completed > during the courts winter vacation just before the retirement of then > Acting > Chief Justice Vishnu Sahai on December 29, 2004. Suspecting trouble, then > Registrar Swatantra Singh went on leave and then Joint Registrar US Awasthi > completed the appointment formalities. > > I dont remember anything about it, claims Singh, who, ironically, is now > Deputy Lok Ayukta, responsible for probity in public office. Awasthi is a > little more forthcoming, telling TEHELKA that those posts were filled > before the retirement of then Acting Chief Justice Vishnu Sahai. But he > pleaded ignorance of any irregularity. Approaching the AHC Registrar > General, BK Dixit, yields little as he refused to comment. The Registrar, > Lucknow Bench, SVS Rathore, had only this to say: The matter did not > pertain to my period. I will have to check the records. > > Given the sluggish progress of the cases filed against the AHCs nepotistic > practices, most people associated with the court are cynical about the > possibility of any change. The practice of backdoor entry through ad-hoc > appointments has been on for years. Whats new in it? asks a former > Registrar, speaking on condition of anonymity. Even if someone did let the > cat out of the bag, who will dare to stand in the witness box against the > honourable chief justices and judges, both retired and serving? > > Faced with the daunting edifice of the court establishments machinery, > petitioner Raj Kumar Yadav wants to know why alternative routes to securing > justice cannot be availed of. The courts have ordered many CBI probes into > various recruitment scams in the country. Why are they not ordering one > into > the scam within their own walls? he wants to know. > > Are the chief justices and judges of the High Courts above the law? Do they > have unlimited powers to make a mockery of the law they are suppose to > protect? Will there not be a loss of public faith in the rule of law if > such > arbitrary orders continue unchecked? These are some of the questions that > those whom the AHC unjustly denied employment opportunities want answered. > > *WRITERS EMAIL** > *sra...@tehelka.com > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Please think about the environment and do not print this e-mail unless you > really need to. > > Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar, Advocate > Public Cause Research Foundation > Tel/ Fax: +91 120 277 1017 > Cell: +91 9868002365, +91 9971519209 > Email: divyajy...@jaipuriar.com, jaipur...@pcrf.in > www.pcrf.in > www.parivartan.com > www.righttoinformation.org > > Visit me at www.jaipuriar.com > National RTI Helpline No. +91 9718100180 > > Notice: The information contained in this e-mail message and/or > attachment(s) to it may contain confidential or privileged information. If > you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, use, review, > distribution, printing or copying of the information contained in this > e-mail message and/or attachment(s) to it are strictly prohibited. If you > have received this communication in error, please notify me by reply e-mail > or telephone and immediately & permanently delete the message and any > attachment(s). Before opening any mail and attachment(s) please check them > for viruses and defect. > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > ------------------------------------ > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rti_india/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rti_india/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:rti_india-dig...@yahoogroups.com mailto:rti_india-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: rti_india-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
