Gurgaon, February 13
The recent move of the state Higher Education Department of revising the seniority list of college lecturers has raked up a major controversy.

The lecturers, whose seniority has been affected by the move, are making representations before the authorities concerned. They maintain that if the state authorities do not undo the injustice done to them, they will be forced to move the court.

Having acted in undue haste even as the matter was with the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the state authorities are now looking for excuses to save their face by justifying the move before the court.

Talking to The Tribune, several affected lecturers pointed out that after the notification of the Haryana Educational Service Rules, 1986, the men and women cadres of lecturers were merged and a joint provisional inter-se seniority list based on the cadre strength as on April 22, 1986, was prepared.

“The joint seniority list was circulated in all government colleges of the state vide memo no. 4/223-87 C-I (4) dated June 24, 1988. In the notification of the joint seniority list, a special note was incorporated, which stated that if any officer wants to submit any representation in this regard, he/she may do it by September 20, 1988,” they pointed out.

Even subsequently, joint seniority lists were issued by the department in 1991, 1994, 1997, 2003, 2004 and 2007 and the same order of seniority continued to follow for nearly 22 years.

Still, strangely enough, the women lecturers who now claim to be victimised did not object to the seniority for so long.

As regarding the college lecturers absorbed into the government service on the basis of the takeover of their privately managed colleges by the government, the criterion of fixing their seniority has already been challenged in the high court vide civil writ petition (CWP) No. 19233 of 2007 (Hari Singh Dudi and others vs State of Haryana and others) and the matter is still pending in the court.

In reply to this CWP given on behalf of the state of Haryana, Ritu Chaudhary, under secretary to the government of Haryana (Higher Education Department), had stated that the petitioner lecturers had never raised objections on the first joint seniority list issued in 1987 and the subsequent lists…Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.

“In a shocking contrast, the state authorities released the fresh draft seniority list on the basis of some representations, ignoring the fact that the seniority list which they revised had been in existence for more than two decades,” the lecturers asserted.

In view of the aforesaid facts, the affected teachers have demanded that their seniority be kept intact and the move to disturb the seniority list scrapped.

Chandigarh, February 13
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has found fault with the orders of a Special Judge holding that the Haryana State Pollution Control Board chairman is “competent person” to remove an executive engineer.

Taking up engineer Om Parkash Dahiya’s petition against the State of Haryana, Justice Ajay Tewari has held: “The petition is disposed of with the clarification that the question regarding competence of the chairman of the Haryana State Pollution Control Board to grant sanction against the petitioner would not be deemed to have been finally decided and shall be decided by the Special Judge after taking evidence.”

“To that extent, the order of the Special Judge conclusively holding the Chairman, Pollution Control Board as competent at this final stage is set aside”.

In his petition through counsel Sanjeev Bansal, Dahiya had sought “the setting aside the order dated September 18, 2009, whereby Special Judge decided to frame charges against the accused holding that the chairman is competent person for removal of the petitioner”.

Bansal asserted the documents on record clearly showed the appointing authority of the petitioner was the government.

He further relied upon the “judgements to forward his assertion that once an authority subordinate to that who is competent to remove the petitioner has granted the sanction, the Special Judge could not even take cognizance”.

Bansal argued the “Special Judge has not only decided to frame charge against the petitioner, he has also finally held that the chairman is competent to remove the petitioner”. He also relied upon another judgement “to say that such final opinion could not have been given by the Special Judge”.

Justice Tewari asserted: I find force in this argument. The Supreme Court has clearly established that the question of competence is a question of evidence. In this context a perusal of the authority State through CBI versus Ravinder Singh, cited by counsel for the petitioner, is also illustrative.

“There also on the basis of the evidence of the first witness, the Special Judge discharged the accused holding that the authority who had granted sanction in this case was not competent to remove him.

“In the present case also, this position may emerge viz. during evidence the accused may be able to conclusively show that in fact, the chairman who has granted the sanction for the present case is not the competent authority”.

Sirsa, February 13
Alleging disparity due to difference in the central excise duty levied on pharmaceutical units in Haryana and on those set up in nearby excise-free zones of Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand, the Haryana Chapter of the Small and Medium Enterprises (SME) Pharmaceutical Industries Confederation (SPIC) has sent a distress call to the MPs and ministers from Haryana urging them to take up their case with the Union Finance Minister.

The SPIC has urged the MPs and the ministers to ensure that their concerns were taken care of while announcing the union budget.

“The central excise disparity between Haryana and the neighbouring excise-free zones (EFZ) of HP and Uttarakhand since 2003 has crippled the economy of Haryana. The disparity was magnified when MRP-based excise, replete with anomalies, was levied on medicines in 2005. It resulted in an unprecedented exodus of units to HP where tax holiday had been operative since 2003,” alleged Vinod Gupta, president of the Haryana Chapter of the SME Pharmaceutical Industries Confederation, in a letter to MPs and ministers from the state.

“The GST was to replace the excise duty in Budget 2010 and some parity was expected after that. However, it was reportedly postponed for a year. There are rumours that excise on pharmaceutical units, which was reduced to 4 per cent in December 2008, may be increased,” the letter added.

The SPIC maintained that if the circumstances did not alter, the pharmaceutical industry in Haryana would not be able to survive.

The SPIC suggests that the excise duty exemption, which is up to Rs 1.50 crore for all types of small-scale industries, should be increased to Rs 5 crore for pharmaceutical industries and the excise abatement, which is 35 per cent at present, be increased to 60 per cent.

The SPIC said the pharmaceutical industry in Haryana had been affected the maximum due to the tax holiday to hill states due to its proximity to Himachal Pradesh. If immediate measures were not taken to bring parity, the very survival of their unit would be in jeopardy.

Fatehabad, February 13
The police has arrested three persons, including Ajay Kaithalia, who had allegedly constituted a truck union in Ratia and forced traders to hire only those trucks that were registered with his union.

Kaithalia had also allegedly made an attempt on the life of the president of the Ratia Beopar Mandal.

The police today arrested the trio for allegedly extorting money from traders and truck drivers.

The accused have been identified as kingpin Ajay, alias Kala, a resident of Kaithal town, now settled in Ratia town, Jagdish, alias Jagga, a resident of Jallopur, and Nasruddin, alias Sonu, of Lohgarh village of Panchkula district.

SP Jagwant Singh Lamba said the three accused were arrested when they were allegedly stopping vehicles for extortion on the national highway.

They were produced before the magistrate, who sent them in police custody for three days.

The activities of Kaithalia had caused a lot of resentment among traders in Ratia town in the district. The traders, the police said, had been complaining that they were being forced to pay more by hiring trucks from his union rather than from the open market.

The police had registered a case under Section 386 of the IPC against him in Ratia some days ago. Later, Kaithalia had allegedly opened fire on Chaman Lal Garg, president of the Ratia Beopar Mandal, and the police had booked him under Sections 307, 148 and 149 of the IPC.

The police today arrested the three accused in a fresh case registered against them for extorting money from vehicle drivers and after recovering arms and ammunition used by them in the crime, the police will arrest Ajay in cases registered against him in Ratia, said the SP.

Last year, we had submitted a memorandum to CM Bhupinder Singh Hooda apprising him of the need for implementing the Tree Protection Act. However, no action has been taken so far. — Environment society chief SL Saini

Panipat, February 13
In an attempt to enhance security measures, the district administration has made it mandatory for all hoteliers and owners of guest houses to take photographs of visitors whenever required.

The orders were issued by Deputy Commissioner Vijay Singh Dahiya. The orders state that the hoteliers and owners of guest house should also provide complete details of those staying on their premises to the nearest police station twice everyday. — TNS