Sunday,
May 18, 2003, Chandigarh, India
|
|
Give six-month training to judicial officers: DBA New Delhi, May 17 The demand was made in a resolution adopted by the office-bearers of Tis Hazari, Patiala House and Karkardooma District Court Bar Associations at a joint meeting on Thursday evening and released to the media last night. “At present, there is no hard and fast system and that often leads to problems,” Tiz Hazari Delhi Bar Association (DBA) president Rajiv Khosla said. The participants resolved to request Delhi High Court Chief Justice B.C. Patel “that the training period of the newly selected judicial officers should be at least six months before they are given independent judicial work”. They set up a 10-member joint coordination committee of office-bearers of the DBA, the New Delhi Bar Association and the Karkardooma Bar Association. The committee with NDBA president K.K. Manan as chairman and Mr Khosla as convenor is to meet once a month. The resolution, to be submitted to Mr Justice Patel, criticised the plan to divide Delhi district courts. The participants opposed re-distribution of work among magistrates since May 12. They said that it was causing harassment to the litigants. The participants also voiced reservations over creation of tribunals “advocated by the vested interests”. Alluding to the recent arrest of a former High Court judge and other such occurrences, they asked the authorities not to spare “any judicial officer” indulging in corruption. “It has been resolved that the corruption in judiciary, which has come to light recently, be strongly condemned and any judicial officer found indulging in such activities not be spared and be dealt with strongly in accordance with the law,” the resolution said.
|
CAT notice to LG and Transport Commissioner New Delhi, May 17 The Principal Bench of CAT comprising Mr Justice V. S. Aggarwal and Mr Justice V. K. Majotra issued notices, returnable on June 26, on the petition which claimed that a false charge sheet had been filed against the petitioner, K. K. Sharma, and he was denied promotion to the post of Motor Licensing Officer on the ground that the charge sheet was pending whereas in reality he had already been exonerated after completion of the departmental proceedings. Sharma’s counsel Surat Singh argued that once the alleged charges had been decided and his client held not guilty the Transport Department should have promoted him. But instead
persons junior to the petitioner were promoted and Sharma was asked to report to such promotees, he said. The petitioner had made a representation to this effect but it did not bear fruit, he added. |
| Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir | Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs | Nation | Editorial | | Business | Sport | World | Mailbag | Chandigarh Tribune | Ludhiana Tribune 50 years of Independence | Tercentenary Celebrations | | 123 Years of Trust | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |