Dear Friends (???) Could we please maintain a little decorum / civility on this group.
This WP is coming up next week before a bench which includes Justice S Murlidhar (who was the standing counsel of Election Commission of India for many years). There is a lot of case law about appointment of Election Commissioners, I surmise this will be used when this case is being heard. In fact the Election Commission is even more strongly placed than CIC because it is a constitutional body. Sarbajit --- In [email protected], "S.D. Sharma" <anonsha...@...> wrote: > > 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 <sunilahya@> sunilahya@ 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 <rtiadvice@> 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 >
