India RTI News

  Ad-hoc employee can be replaced only by regular employee and not another adhoc Employee TO REPLACE THEY HAVE TO PROVE THAT THEIR PERFORMANCE IS LOW WHICH IS TOUGH TO PROVE  In Harminder Kaur and Others Vs. UOI and Others, (2009) 7 SCALE 204, ruled that in such an even the contract workers can be replaced by another set of contract workers and they cannot seek regularization as a matter of right. However, they are free to participate in the selection process in which the question of relaxation in age has to be considered. 18. With utmost respect to the Honble Members, we do not agree with the reasoning given above because in the judgment of Harminder Kaur (Supra) it is nowhere stated that one set of contractual employee can be replaced by another set of contractual employee. On the contrary, in para 3 of the judgment it was observed that the teachers on contract basis should not be replaced by another set of contractual employees. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/62999562/ IN THE SUPREM

Citizens can penalize contractor, road engineers who neglect their duties and fine upto 1 lac can be done  

  IT IS SEEN AT MAXIMUM COURTS , JUDGES SEEMS TO BE BIAS AND DENY TO RECORD POINTS WHICH CAN DELIVER ORDER ON MERITS. POINTS WHICH ARE NOT RECORDED MEANS NEVER DISCUSSED IN COURT. 30. A three-Judge bench of the Supreme Court in Rattiram Vs. State of M.P., (2012) 4 SCC 516, observed: "39. ... Fundamentally, a fair and impartial trial has a sacrosanct purpose. It has a demonstrable object that the accused should not be prejudiced. A fair trial is required to be conducted in such a manner which would totally ostracise injustice, prejudice, dishonesty and favouritism." P 53 ......A Judge who does not honestly and fairly record the proceedings, does the greatest injustice to the parties. A judge is supposed to have no personal interest in a case being tried or dealt with by him. He is always expected to truthfully record the proceedings conducted by him. It is for this reason, that the proceedings recorded by a judge in his orders is accepted as true. If a judge breaches this trus

  Fraud और न्याय एक साथ नहीं हो सकता: supreme court उमरिया MP STATE: सीजेएम आरपी अहिरवार ने उमरिया कोतवाली TI VARSHA PATEL और SP VIKAS SAHWAL पर कंटेंप्ट की कार्यवाही करने से इंकार कर दिया। केस नंबर MJCR /50/2020 मे दोनो पुलिस कर्मियों पर supreme court  lalita kumari FIR GUIDELINES का VIOLATION करने पर contempt दायर किया गया। तब के CJM ANIL CHAUDHARI को बताया गया की सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने cognizable offence में FIR नही करने पर ललिता कुमारी ऑर्डर के para 3 में magistrate को contempt को action लेने कहा है। तब सीजेएम अनिल चौधरी ने दोनो को नोटिस जारी किया। बाद में दोनो ने बिना एफिडेविट के जवाब दायर किया। COMPLAINANT SAPAN SHRIVASTAVA ने इसका विरोध किया तब सीजेएम ने दोनो को AFFIDAVIT दायर करने को कहा। फिर अनिल चौधरी जी का ट्रांसफर जबलपुर हो गया। नए सीजेएम Ram Prakash Ahirwar ने process issue होने पर पर भी याचिका खारिज कर दी और लिखा की इस कोर्ट को सुप्रीम कोर्ट के आदेश पर कार्यवाही का अधिकार नहीं। Para 3 की बात को जानबूझ कर ऑर्डर में नही लिखा गया। फिर रिकॉल एप्लीकेशन MJCR/111/2022 दायर किया गया। 1

  https://indiankanoon.org/doc/581087/ Supreme Court of India Bholu Ram vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 29 August, 2008 Bench: C.K. Thakker, D.K. Jain REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1366 OF 2008 ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 39 OF 2001 BHOLU RAM ... APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & Anr. ... RESPONDENTS J U D G M E N T C.K. THAKKER, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The present appeal is filed by the appellant-accused against the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala on March 5, 1998 in Criminal Revision Nos. 11 and 12 of 1997 and confirmed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana on November 26, 2006 in Criminal Revision Nos. 401 and 402 of 1998. 3. To appreciate the issues raised in the present appeal, fe