Dear Friend Ahya,

We would appreciate if you kindly do not attempt to teach our
venerable group founding member Rtiadvicer how to suck eggs. The 2
decisions you are refering are not even remotely relevant for
appointment of CCIC. Since you were also arrested with Shri Krishnaraj
Rao it is presumed you are one of the jokers Learned advicer refers.

http://openarchive.in/judis/14606.htm
http://openarchive.in/judis/10326.htm

Both your old (1996) cases are about non-promotion, regularisation of
casuals and scheduled caste quota discrimination. The settled status
of 16(1) is there must be equal opportunity for appointment to any
office ||UNDER|| the State. The best decsions date from the 1960's -
like "Krishan Chandra Nagar"

S D Sharma


:---------- Sunil Ahya <sunila...@...> sunila...@... wrote

Dear Friend,


    Quote:
    Article 12. Definition."In this Part, unless the context otherwise
requires, "the State" includes the Government and Parliament of India
and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all
local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the
control of the Government of India.
    Unquote


Some SC Judgments:

(i) Appointments made only on the basis of notification put up on
notice board without any advertisements in newspapers, without
inviting applications from open market and from employment exchange
are stage managed by authorities in flagrant breach of Article 14 &
16.[Ashwani Kumar Vs State of BiharAIR 1996 SC2833]

(ii) Right to seek appointment to a Post under Article 14 read with
Article 16(1)& (4) is a Constitutional right to equality......... [Jai
Narain ram Vs State of UP, AIR 1996, SC 703]

Warm Regards,

Sunil Ahya.

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 10:15 AM, rti advice <rtiadv...@...> wrote:



    Dear Sarbajit

    This is about the PIL which some RTI activists from Maharashtra have
    filed in our High Court.
    The filing reference is WP(C)12918 with CMM 13793 of 2009
    "Krishna Rao &Ors vs UOI and Ors"

    You should track this case because copy was forwarded to me for my
    informal perusal by one
    of the Resp. The drafting of this WP is abysmal and is the usual
    publicity seeking PILs tangoing
    with my party on behalf of Ansari.

    The case hasn't been registered as yet due to filing defects and is
    not yet available via Courtnic.

    Since our old friend PB is going to be appearing for these clowns at
    the next hearing, would you
    educate the RTI group that Art. 16 which these activists strongly rely
    on is for public appointments
    UNDER (he-he) the State ?

-- 
It is not always the same thing to be a good man and a good citizen - Aristotle

Reply via email to