Saturday, March 7, 2009

RTI Act helps physically challenged youth get job

RTI Act helps physically challenged youth get job

Mohamed Imranullah S.

He might soon join TNSTC as a conductor

His name was not in list of eligible candidates

He was suffering from a congenital disability


MADURAI: K. Sudalai, a physically challenged youth of Palayamkottai in Tirunelveli district, might soon join the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation as a bus conductor, thanks to the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.

The youngster suffering from a congenital disability on his leg was caught unawares in April 2008 when his name did not find place in the list of candidates eligible to apply for the post of bus conductor in Madurai Division of TNSTC.

He had completed Standard X in 1996 and possessed a conductor’s licence issued by the Regional Transport Authority.

The youth had also worked as a conductor temporarily with TNSTC during a festival season in 2006-07.

Wondering why he was dropped from the selection process despite necessary qualifications, Mr. Sudalai made representations to the Transport Secretary and Tirunelveli Collector on May 7, 2008. But there was no reply.

He submitted an application under the RTI Act. Replying to it, District Employment Officer said the General Manager, TNSTC (Madurai Division), had informed that physically challenged persons were not fit to be appointed as conductors.

The reply helped the youngster file a writ petition in the Madras High Court Bench here to consider his candidature as enunciated in Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.

Justice K. Venkataraman pointed out that as per a notification published in the Union Gazette on March 15, 2007 bus conductor was one of the jobs that could be occupied by persons with orthopaedic disabilities.

He agreed with petitioner’s counsel G. Prabhu Rajadurai that there was no reason for the Madurai Division alone to reject physically challenged persons to the post of conductor when other Divisions were not doing so.

“When the petitioner could be appointed temporarily as conductor during festival seasons, while running special buses, it is not known why he cannot be appointed on permanent basis,” the Judge observed and directed TNSTC to consider the petitioner’s plea within four weeks.

© Copyright 2000 - 2008 The Hindu

Courtesy_

http://www.thehindu.com


Sunday, March 1, 2009

Court redefines Official Secrets Act 1923 (OSA)

Court redefines `official secret', relief to scribe

26 Feb 2009, 0033 hrs IST, Abhinav Garg, TNN

NEW DELHI: In a major boost to freedom of press, a Delhi court has ruled that the publication of a document merely labelled ``secret'' shall not render the journalist liable under the colonial relic, Official Secrets Act 1923 (OSA).

Additional sessions judge Inder Jeet Singh discharged journalist Santanu Saikia in a case booked against him by the CBI 10 years ago for publishing the contents of a Cabinet note on divestment policy. The CBI case against Saikia, under OSA, had raised eyebrows because it was not uncommon for the media to do stories on the basis of Cabinet papers despite their being a classified secret.

Relying on a 1996 Supreme Court verdict in the case of Sama Alana Abdulla vs State of Gujarat, Singh said that the test of whether a certain disclosure compromised a secret depended on whether an ``official code'' or ``password'' had been divulged in terms of section 5.

The court's liberal interpretation lessens the scope for misuse of the OSA Act by the official machinery as it makes a sharp distinction between a secret document or report dealing with day-to-day routine affairs and one containing information on the sensitive issue of national security.

``The qualifying word secret has to be read in respect of an official code or password'' ASJ Singh clarified, for OSA to be applicable and not just because it says ``secret''.


The main ground on which the court discharged Saikia was that the publication of the disinvestment document was unlikely to affect the sovereignty and integrity of India or the security of the state or friendly relations with foreign states.

The court also recalled the bizarre circumstances in which CBI booked Saikia under OSA in 1999 after a three-year in-house probe to find out how the secret document on disinvestment had been leaked just a day before a Cabinet meeting. Although the prolonged probe yielded no result and the CBI made no recovery from Saikia, a case was registered against him.

On his part Saikia, who argued the case himself in court, pointed out how an archaic Act — framed to nab spies — was being used to harass a journalist in the 21st century. He also argued that in the age of the Right to Information Act where courts and commissions are broadening the ambit of official documents accessible to citizens, a news report on divestment could in no way be seen as an offence inviting penalties as strict as those prescribed under OSA.

Courtesy_
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

The RTI Act was passed by the Lok Sabha (Lower House) on 11 May 2005, by the Raj Sabha (Upper House) on 12 May 2005 and received Presidential assent on 15 June 2005. Parts of the Act came into force upon Presidential assent, but the Act came fully into force on 12 October 2005, 120 days after Presidential assent.

Search our Blog

Google
 

Subscribe this Blog to your E-mail


Disclaimer

This Blog Spot is meant for publishing reports about the usage of RTI Act (Right to Information Act, 2005) so as to create an awareness to the general public and also to keep it as a ready reckoner by them. So the readers may extend their gratitude towards the Author as we quoted at the bottom of each Post under the title "Courtesy".Furthermore, the Blog Authors are no way responsible for the correctness of the materials published herein and the readers may verify the concerned valuable sources.

Dinamani - RTI News