1. Since the case was decided 5 years ago, we cannot technically call it a final hearing even if the court referred to it in that manner.
2.What we are trying to establish right now is that statutory rules are not be followed. The statutory rules clearly says that eligibility list has to be prepared on the basis of regular service. The list prepared by the Dept uses date of entry into contractual service. 3. Secondly corrections made in the PEXs list from 1983 ( where Naik and batch have been reverted have not been included in the list. 4. An email has been sent on behalf of AUPO to all in our contact list . This e mail details what we said in our affidavit to the court in our hearing today. (which is to be heard on 30th July at 2 p.m). Those who receive it please forward it to others.
5. I would also like to say a couple of more things - a) Many of our Association members (including those on our contact list are not members of our blog. They need to join the blog as members. b) Delhi based mebers should refrain from calling up to find out what happened in court. This is JUST not done. I find it highly objectionable. It is their duty to be in court along with us. The energy when a group of people stand together is huge. c) All members should at least now use their sources (if they have any) , just as they would if they were transfered etc. I have no doubt that our opponents have been using their "sources" and links to make phone calls to senior officials in the Ministry, Department etc to save them form reversion, inspite of us having the advantage in terms of favourable court judgments and statutory rules. So what are we wainting for. regards Jose Jude Mathew
1 comment:
1. Since the case was decided 5 years ago, we cannot technically call it a final hearing even if the court referred to it in that manner.
2.What we are trying to establish right now is that statutory rules are not be followed. The statutory rules clearly says that eligibility list has to be prepared on the basis of regular service. The list prepared by the Dept uses date of entry into contractual service.
3. Secondly corrections made in the PEXs list from 1983 ( where Naik and batch have been reverted have not been included in the list.
4. An email has been sent on behalf of AUPO to all in our contact list . This e mail details what we said in our affidavit to the court in our hearing today. (which is to be heard on 30th July at 2 p.m). Those who receive it please forward it to others.
5. I would also like to say a couple of more things -
a) Many of our Association members (including those on our contact list are not members of our blog. They need to join the blog as members.
b) Delhi based mebers should refrain from calling up to find out what happened in court. This is JUST not done. I find it highly objectionable. It is their duty to be in court along with us. The energy when a group of people stand together is huge.
c) All members should at least now use their sources (if they have any) , just as they would if they were transfered etc. I have no doubt that our opponents have been using their "sources" and links to make phone calls to senior officials in the Ministry, Department etc to save them form reversion, inspite of us having the advantage in terms of favourable court judgments and statutory rules. So what are we wainting for.
regards
Jose Jude Mathew
Post a Comment