AP High Court Recruitment 2012 – System Officer/Asst Vacancies: High Court of AP has issued notification against recruitment of 30 System Officer/Assistant Vacancies at 20 districts under the e-courts project. Eligible candidates may apply through prescribed application format on or before 18-06-2012. Other details like age limit, educational qualification, application fee details, selection process and how to apply are given below…

 AP High Court Vacancy Details:

Total Number of Vacancies: 30

Names of Posts:

1. System Officer – 03 vacancies

2. System Assistant – 27 vacancies

 Age Limit: Candidates’ age must be below 30 years as on the date of notification. (Age relaxations will be extended as per Govt. rules).

 Educational Qualification: Candidates must be possess BE/B.Tech/MCA or Master’s Degree or B.Sc in relevant discipline for Officer post and Diploma in ITI after 10th standard for Assistant post.

 How to Apply: Candidates need to download application format, attach photograph, attest signature and send it along with copies of all relevant certificates, to the following address, District Judge or Central Project Coordinator, High Court of Andhra Pradesh on or before 18-06-2012.

 Last Date for Receipt of Application: 18-06-2012

For more details like vacancy distribution, pay scale, reservations, other requirements, other instructions and test details, click on the link given below…

For more details visit:http://hc.ap.nic.in/

           My name is Sai Padma. I am a law graduate and a disability rights activist and I run an NGO for the persons with disabilities by name Global AID (Ability In Disability). I am a physically challenge person by polio, and a wheelchair user. I am an aspirant in Junior Civil Judges Screening test conducted on 26-6-2011 by High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The exam was conducted in the premises of Dr.Lankapalli Bullayya College, Visakhapatnam.
          I applied to JCJ screening test on the basis of Physically Challenged quota reserved for Orthopedically Handicapped Persons, and duly submitted my application along with my disability certificate.  My husband Mr. Pragnanand went to the venue a day before the date of examination and was told that High Court of AP is conducting the exam so they will look after the seating arrangement.
         We went to the exam hall on 26-6-2011 at sharp 9Am. But much to our dismay, no ground floor seating was provided to me. I was allotted seat in Room No.521 (First floor) in Block-V.   I became upset and subsequently tensed at the situation. Despite explaining my physical condition (including surgery for scoliosis) and humble request from my husband, they refused to consider allotting seat in the ground floor in the opposite blocks (Block-II or Block-III). Instead they offered people to carry me on the wheelchair. We agreed as there was no other option.
        A total of five people carried me, who are untrained in handling the wheelchair. They, with the help of my husband, lifted the wheelchair, on to the 10 steps at the entrance of the block and several to reach the first floor. It’s entirely a painful and stressful experience for me, who was operated for spinal cord.
        In exam hall, I was allotted corner seat and I had to write my exam in wheelchair clutching a writing pad which I carried with me. After finishing the exam, I came to know that another candidate, also a person with disability using walker faced the same situation like me. 
        I wished to meet the High Court Justice who happened to be monitoring the examination and appraise of the problems faced by persons with disabilities. After finishing the exam me and my husband approached the room in which he was present (same floor where I appeared for the exam) and waited outside for about 15 minutes for seeking permission to meet him. We were stopped by many people asking what work I have with him. We explained them patiently, but finally a lean person (bearded) came outside the room came and said, Hon’ble Justice is busy and can’t spare time.
        We got really frustrated and said we intended to take the matter to the next level. Then from inside, a District Judge of Visakhapatnam came and said a simple sorry and inconvenience regretted and stated that seating allotment was made in Hyderabad and they have no say & can’t help
      Again, I have faced the ordeal of being carried by 5 to 6 untrained persons, who almost tumbled while lifting the wheelchair and landed the wheelchair like sudden drop onto the ground that caused the extreme pain in my right shoulder and back bone.
      Dear friends… here I am not finding fault with few individuals. But our judiciary system and country consists of 1 billion disabled persons and their basic access needs have to be considered when we talk about equal opportunities.
      If the judiciary system cannot make accessible arrangements for persons with disabilities, not sensitive for their own members (Advocates) accessibility to profession, if there is no systems and procedures  to address our problems and follow, this is serious concern to all. If judiciary system itself do not pay attention in the arrangement related to a simple seating allotment, and if the person who monitors does not have the power to take decision on re-allotment and lastly few minutes to hear to the person who faced the trouble, I have to just express: what more can, we, the persons with disabilities, expect from Judicial system meant to do justice under the Constitution.
      I am hopeful that learned disabled community and other professionals will support our move to make Judiciary System accessible first to make our voice hear.

Global AID is trying address this issue further, to save many like us, Please give your valuable suggestions/feedback on this!

                If any one have similar kind of story, share with me. Let’s be human enough to help ourselves.

You can reach me

Sai Padma- 905 262 7070

saipadma@gmail.com

sai.globalaid@gmail.com

Muslim Lady Voted in to Power Congress on the popular measure of 4% Reservation, The State Govt. is blamed for not presenting its defence to the panel, with determination. Muslims, missing Late Rajsheker Redfdy's type of comiment towards them.

Feb. 8:   Muslims of Andhra Pradesh, and the govt of AP suffered a setback,  Lakhs of Muslim Boys and and Girls, hope to find their place in field of education and jobs spent sleepless night, with their future plans and hopes in balance in Courts.   

As  AP High Court in a majority decision on Monday struck down as unsustainable the legislation providing four per cent reservation in educational institutions and government jobs to backward groups among Muslims.

 A seven-member bench headed by Chief Justice Anil R. Dave was divided 5-2 and provided three different decisions while striking down the legislation. Justice Dave while pronouncing the verdict on his behalf and on behalf of Justice A. Gopal Reddy, Justice V. Eswaraiah and Justice G. Raghuram opined that the legislation failed to define the expressions “Muslim” and “other Muslim groups.”

 The Act violated Articles 14, 15(1) and 16 (2) of the Constitution. The court faulted the surveys relied upon by the BC Commission to enumerate Muslim backwardness. The commission’s own survey was “not sufficient,” it said.

The court struck down the AP Reservations in Favor of Socially and Education-ally Backward Classes of Muslims Act, 2007 and the Government Orders Ms 23 and 231 to provide reservation for Muslim.

 Lakhs of Muslim boys and girls, in preparation for approaching intermediate, and emcet exams.  The reservation for the backward and the disadvantaged in the Muslim community gave the needed start to the trend in the Muslims to go for proper education, and gradually but surely raise the bar of percentage of literacy in Muslim backward community.  

 The admission so far made under this reservation policy of 4% since 2007 will not be effected. But the future admissions or admission hereafter may get blocked.  The govt of AP acted apparently swiftly to go for appeal against the order of High Court in Supreme Court, immediately.

 The Muslim organizations, like MEC Minorities Empowerment Council, demand restoration of the reservation policy, in consultation with legal experts, and represent, appeal without any delay to the Supreme Court, with determination and zeal. 

The judgment has many issues, discussed, like.

 The judges said, “In our opinion, the 2007 Act is religion-specific and potentially encourages religious conversion, and is thus unsustainable.” 

All the SC and ST reservation for tens of years are for Hindus specific, any conversation to any other religion other than Hinduism, excludes them from the SC ST category and they in fact loose the right to ask for reservation.  This is the reason govt of AP moved a campaign to extend reservation even in cases where a conversion takes place, and a SC ST Hindu converts to any other faith.

The Ranganth Commission has recommended 15 % reservation for Minorities, and the commission specifically wanted10% of it reserved for Muslims alone. The commission found the Muslims are backward, and are getting both economically, socially alienated; they needed strong commitment for the govt. To uplift them in jobs, education, and economic supports like scholarships, and soft loans etc.

I appeal to the Govt. and the Judiciary to take recommendations of the Sachar, and Ranganth Commissions as guidelines to proceed on the issue of supporting the Minorities on this Country.

The good news is the West Bengal Govt announced 10% reservations for Muslims yesterday.

BJP and VHP are using this to justify their own stands. Blaming the Congress and the Communists are playing vote bank politics.

MIM staged protests in front of Secretariat on 8^th . MIM a stong alley of Congress, is also facing embrassment, this is one big issue which helped them too to win 7 mls seats in the City of Hyderabad.

 The Muslims expected the leaders of MIM should have taken this matter seriously and follwed it closly with the govt legal department in defending and helping the govt in arguing the case in High Court.

I am hopeful,  there will a relief from the supreme court at the earliest,  and the govt at the centre should make its point clear on this issue.

It is high time UPA govt goes, for a parliamentary bill to make 10% reservations a law for the Muslims  in all States of India. As recommended by Ranganth Comission. 

We speak of rights of Muslims, our leaders, and political parties and the govts, who win elections and run govts with the supprot of Minorities fail to defend them rightfully. Why ?

 We Speak of Separte Telanagana, and United Andhra the problem today is bigger and grave the rights of the people who are disadvantaged.

The Bench comprising Justice B. Prakasha Rao and Justice Bhavani Prasad on Monday perused the arguments advanced by Vedula Venkata Ramana who appeared on behalf of Praja Rajyam Party. The petitioner contended that the rule which stipulates that the symbol will be allotted only after participating in one general election is unconstitutional. Seeking a direction to the EC for allotment of a common symbol, he drew comparison with the TRS which was given a common symbol earlier..

The arguments by a senior counsel on behalf of the Election Commission will commence in after noon session on Tuesday. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the commission said that the case of TRS was different as it proved its mettle and existence in the local body elections though they are not held under the provisions of the representation of Peoples Act.

• The Supreme Court has held that only licensed allopathic manufacturers can sell Viagra.. The accused were engaged in the manufacture of supposedly Ayurvedic Ozomen capsules and Ozomen forte which contained quantities of “sildenafil citrate” – one of the primary ingredients of Viagra. Section 18(a) (i) read with Section 17B(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act prohibits manufacture and sale of certain drugs and cosmetics which are ‘misbranded, spurious and substituted wholly or in part by another drug or substance’.

The AP High Court had quashed the proceedings holding that the Drugs Inspector appointed under Section 21 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act had no jurisdiction to launch prosecution under Section 32 of the Act (which deals with offences pertaining to Ayurvedic drugs).The Supreme Court held that this was not a case of an Ayurvedic drug, but clearly one involving an allopathic drug which was sought to be passed off as Ayurvedic.

• In M/S PARAKH FOODS LTD v. STATE OF A.P. & ANR, the Supreme Court held that a company cannot be blamed and found guilty of misbranding a food article if the picture on its label has nothing to do with the food article concerned. From the Indian Express news report:

The product in question was soyabean oil and the label, as noticed by the High Court, contained pictures of vegetables like cabbage, carrot, brinjal, capsicum, cauliflower, tomato and onions, which it found “are in no way connected with soyabean oil”.

While the High Court held that this was a case of misbranding, the Supreme Court took an opposite view

“In our opinion, the High Court has committed a serious error in arriving at a finding that the article of food (soyabean oil) was misbranded, since the picture contained on the label has nothing to do with the article of food in question, ignoring the fact that the article of food can be used for cooking the vegetables shown in the picture which cannot be said to be exaggerating the quality of the food in question.”

• The third case involves the advertisements of a pain balm called Volini manufactured by Ranbaxy which was accused of disparaging its rivals. Business Standard reports:
  

  The Supreme Court today directed Ranbaxy Laboratories to drop the word asli from its advertisement for Volini pain balm but allowed it to run the rest on television despite the protest of the manufacturers of a rival product, Moov.

  The Gujarat High Court had prevented Ranbaxy from running the advertisement which said that its product gives asli aaram while another product shown in purple is thrust away.
  Paras Pharmaceuticals, manufacturers of Moov, sued Ranbaxy for disparaging its product. The high court granted an injunction against Ranbaxy. Harish Salve, counsel for Ranbaxy, argued that hyperbole is allowed in a market which is not for the ‘faint-hearted’.