M A I L B A G

ORP promotions despite stay order

Mr Anupam Gupta has written the article “Back to the terrorism days but with a slant” (Aug 27) without reading Punjab Police Service Rules, 1959. In the rules, 80 per cent promotions from Inspector to D.S.P. and 20 per cent in the direct quota have been provided for. This rule has been thrown to the winds while giving ORP promotions. The article is based on the premise that all ORP promotions have been given on the basis of good work done by the police officers during the days of terrorism. This is not correct.

While the court had granted a stay on further promotions in February, 2001, the Badal government went on violating the stay and granted ORP promotions. There was no terrorism after 1992, but the ORP benefits have been given to the favourite uptil now.

The Supreme Court in Paramjit Singh Sandhu vs Ram Rakha (reported in 1979 (2) S.L.R. page 88) has categorically ruled that the ratio of 80:20 under the rules should not be at the initial recruitment, but it should be maintained at the promotional level also. The state government has turned a Nelson’s eye towards the rules while giving ORP rank.

In Punjab the ORP rank has not been given on account of the performance against terrorism alone. There are officers like Mr Bachan Singh Randhawa who had suffered at the hands of terrorists, but were not given this benefit. His whole family was abducted by terrorists. His house was burnt and he had suffered three bullet injuries during an encounter with terrorists. Twice he has been awarded the President’s Police Medal.

Untrained police officers have been given high ranks. They have occupied the regular posts and blocked the channel of promotion and created unrest in the police force.

HARI SINGH MANN, Chandigarh

Ad on I-Day

I was hurt to see an advertisement in your newspaper on August 15, 2001, issued by the Union Department of Science & Technology which described the 55th Independence Day as 54th. It was the 54th anniversary of Independence Day. We can realise how un(der) informed the Department of Science & Technology is in the age of information technology.

RAJEEV KUMAR ARORA, Bathinda

Anti-Sikh bias

I have been reading your views about the Sikhs with interest and cite here a few examples. The editorial “Trauma in School” (Aug 8) tried to plead the case of a Sikh student who had cut his hair and the Principal took action against him as provided in the school statutes. Every institution has its own statutes to maintain discipline. It was an isolated case played up in the form of an editorial to dilute the discipline of that school.

Your paper also recently reported that Sikhs uprooted from “occupied Kashmir” over 50 years ago have not so far been given the status of refugees while their counterparts belonging to the majority community have been treated as refugees and are availing special facilities. The Sikh refugees’ case also deserved to be pleaded at least in the form of an editorial since it is a much bigger trauma. But not a single line was written, which is unfortunate.

Again you pleaded the case of alleged guilty police officers for the grant of amnesty, though their cases have been investigated by the CBI mostly under the directions of higher courts. The grant of amnesty to them has been opposed by a law expert of the stature of Justice Rajinder Sachar, who has termed it unconstitutional. Recently, even Amnesty International opposed this move through an open letter to the Home Minister.

Only courts are competent to see whether someone is guilty or innocent, not the public at large or the accused persons. But your editorial encourages the police men to criticise the courts, including the apex one.

Also you often write the half names of Sikh religious and political personalities by deleting the word “Singh” from their names probably under the pretext of editing which is against the Sikh tenets and injures our feelings. All this shows your anti-Sikh bias.

Dr KUNDAN SINGH, Ludhiana

SSSB interviews

The Subordinate Service Selection Board, Punjab, had invited applications for the post of Junior Auditor (Transport Department) on May 15, 1995. Even after six years, the board has not yet held interviews.

MALKIT SINGH, Ropar

Incomplete Urdu couplet

The Urdu couplet quoted in the letter “Militancy and amnesty” (Aug 31) is incomplete and conveys a wrong meaning. It should read as under:

“Kal paaon ek kasa-e-sar par jo aa giya,

Yaksar woh ustkhan-e-shakasta se choor tha,

Kehne laga ke dekh kar chal rah bey khabar,

Mein bhi kabhi kisi ka sar-e-purgaroor tha.

Principal M. L. SHARMA (retd), Chandigarh