A.P. Village-Ward Secretariat staff allege irregularities in transfers
The delegation included the association State president Sheikh Abdul Razak, joint secretary Parsha Madhu, executive member Ramesh, and union leaders Bhagiratha, Madhav Rao, Mukesh, Saleem, Raja, Manikantha, Mareshwara Rao, and Anil Kumar.
They alleged that in many places across the State, the transfer process for Village and Ward Secretariat employees was conducted in a highly opaque manner, violating G.O. 5. While some districts adhered to the rules and carried out transfers transparently, others gave undue importance to political recommendations, resulting in senior employees being unfairly sidelined. In several districts, during the counselling sessions, the seniority lists of employees were not displayed. Instead, employees were simply asked to fill out option forms without being informed of available vacancies or the basis on which transfers would be made. As a result, many employees remained confused about the process, they said.
In some centres, eligible candidates were not given the priority they were entitled to.
In Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, transfers were reportedly carried out arbitrarily without conducting proper counselling for Ward Secretariat staff, they added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
14 hours ago
- The Hindu
Consider complaints filed for removal of unauthorised constructions and dispose of them within a time frame, Madras High Court tells committee
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has directed Madurai Collector, the chairperson of the Madurai District High Level Monitoring Committee to consider the applications/complaints filed for removal of encroachments/unauthorised constructions and dispose of the complaints within a time frame. The court was hearing a public interest litigation petition filed by R. Mayilsamy of Madurai who sought a direction to Madurai Collector to constitute a District High Level Committee for monitoring and preventing unauthorised constructions as per a G.O. issued in 2024 by the Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department. The State submitted that pursuant to the G.O., the Madurai Collector issued proceedings dated October 24, 2024, constituting the Madurai District High Level Monitoring Committee. The members of the Monitoring Committee comprise officers of various levels. The petitioner submitted that though the committee was constituted no action has been taken for removal of encroachment. The complaints filed by the aggrieved persons were not dealt with and kept pending for a long time. A Division Bench of Justices S.M. Subramaniam and A.D. Maria Clete observed that keeping the petitions pending for a long time would cause prejudice to the interest of the complainants who were suffering on account of unauthorised constructions. Urgent action should be initiated to deal with the complaints and initiate enforcement actions by following procedures as per the G.O.. The G.O. states that meetings should be conducted periodically. A report should be submitted to the State High Level Committee. However, the petitioner submitted that no such report had been submitted to the State High Level Committee so far. The G.O. should be followed scrupulously by the District High Level Monitoring Committee, failing which, the government has to initiate all appropriate action to ensure that the G.O.s are implemented in its letter and spirit, the court directed.
The Hindu
17 hours ago
- The Hindu
Government Order on re-employment of principals, college librarians, physical education directors lauded
The Tamil Nadu Government College Teachers Association (TNGCTA) has welcomed the State's decision to authorise the re-employment of principals, college librarians and physical education directors until the end of the academic year (May 31), rather than on the last calendar date of the staff's tenure. According to the Government Order No.178, issued on July 30, the Commissioner of Collegiate Education requested to allow the re-employment to principals, college librarians and physical education directors until the end of the academic year (May 31), among Joint Directors, Regional Joint Directors, for those whose services had been dispensed with through G.O. No. 192, issued on November 12, 2024, as these staff members were needed to undertake the work related to university examinations and admissions for the next academic year. According to the 2024 G.O., principals (Grades I and II), librarians and physical education directors would retire on the last day of the month when they attained the age of superannuation. Conditional re-employment until the end of the academic year was offered only to the teaching staff. The decision to re-allow employment of principals, librarians and physical education directors would help institutions to function without disruption in the academic year, said many academicians. 'This has been a long-standing demand of the TNGCTA, as retirement of senior staff in the middle of the academic year can stop the flow of work in educational institutions. Immediate replacement of principals, for example, is not possible, and no major decision will be taken by the person in-charge. Similarly, librarians are needed for verifying the stock of books in the institution, and the service of physical education directors' presence is essential to prepare students for the sports competitions usually held at the end of the academic year. We are happy that the Government has listened to the teachers' associations,' P. David Livingstone, TNGCTA State president, said in an official press release. As per the new G.O., the re-employment of principals would be decided by the Director of Collegiate Education (DCE). In the case of librarians and physical education directors, the DCE's decision would be based on recommendations by the respective principals.
Hindustan Times
2 days ago
- Hindustan Times
Why age of consent laws need a nuanced rethink
Across India, there is a growing dissonance between the spirit of child protection laws and their real-world consequences, particularly when the setting of adolescent relationships is considered. The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, enacted in 2012 to shield minors from sexual exploitation, sets the age of consent at 18. While this offers a clear safeguard in theory, it has often become a tool for families to penalise relationships that cross lines of caste, community, or gender norms. What began as a shield has, in many instances, turned into a sword. Romantic love is reframed as rape. Adolescence becomes another battleground for families to reassert control — often at the cost of the boy's future and the girl's agency. This legal rigidity ignores the rapidly changing world adolescents inhabit. Teenagers today grow up in a hyper-connected environment — exposed early to sexual content, peer influence, and evolving norms around intimacy. Public displays of affection no longer scandalise the urban middle class. Smartphones, dating apps, and social media shape adolescents' understanding of love and identity. Yet, our laws pretend that teenage desire does not exist — or worse, that it must be punished. The real issue lies in POCSO's failure to account for context. It makes no distinction between an exploitative relationship and a consensual one between two teenagers. A 17-year-old in love is treated the same as a 45-year-old predator. The fallout is harsh — boys branded as rapists face shattered futures, and girls lose their voice in decisions about their own bodies. Many countries have grappled with this complexity more pragmatically. Canada allows consensual sex at 16, or even 14–15 if the partner is within five years of age. Germany permits consensual sex from age 14, provided there's no coercion and the partner is under 21. These 'close-in-age' exemptions protect against abuse while recognising adolescent sexuality as a part of growing up. At the other end are countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, where all sex outside marriage is criminalised. While seemingly strict, such systems often leave girls grappling with increased vulnerability — trapped in child marriages with no protection against non-consensual marital sex. India stands at a contradictory crossroads. We criminalise all sex with those under 18 — even within marriage, post a landmark Supreme Court ruling in 2017. Yet, according to NFHS-5, over 23% of Indian women aged 20–24 were married before 18. These girls, often pushed into early marital sex, rarely find legal redress. The law steps in only when a girl elopes, not when she is quietly married off at 15. This contradiction reveals a deeper hypocrisy. Our laws are less about protecting children and more about preserving family honour. When girls choose partners outside accepted norms, the law becomes punitive. When families arrange early marriages, society looks away. This is the uncomfortable truth the current Supreme Court debate is beginning to confront. While the Centre defends the 18-year threshold, the Court has raised crucial questions: Should teenagers be jailed for exploring love? Could comprehensive sex education be a better response than prosecution? The answer lies not in lowering the age of consent indiscriminately, but in crafting a more nuanced legal framework. One that protects without criminalising, and recognises that teenage sexuality cannot be erased through denial or fear. Such a framework could include close-in-age exemptions for consensual relationships between 16–18-year-olds, judicial discretion to assess the nature and context of each case, mandatory sex education to empower young people with knowledge about consent, boundaries, and safety, unambiguous criminalisation of child marriage, with no exceptions for marital sex. Ultimately, this is not just a legal issue — it's a cultural reckoning. It forces us to confront our discomfort with adolescent agency, our refusal to talk openly about sex, and our tendency to confuse control with care. Laws alone cannot protect young people. True protection lies in equipping them to make informed choices. A just society does not fear its youth — it listens to them. AL Sharada is trustee, Population First. The views expressed are personal.
