Tamil Nadu government to give 4% reservation in promotion to its staff with benchmark disabilities
However, one of the instructions allows the government to exempt any of its establishments from provisions of Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
According to the instructions, the reservation in promotion for persons with benchmark disabilities is 'applicable only to the identified posts notified by the government where the cadre strength of a post is more than five. Such identification shall be made only for posts carrying a pay level up to pay level 25 in each government establishment'.
The reservation is applicable in promotion as well as in recruitment by transfer (lower pay scale to higher pay scale). While 1% is reserved for blindness and low vision, 1% is reserved for deaf and hard of hearing. 1% is reserved for locomotor disability, including cerebral palsy, leprosy cured, dwarfism, acid attack victims, and muscular dystrophy. Another 1% is reserved for autism, intellectual disability, specific learning disability and mental illness, multiple disabilities from among persons under clauses (a) to (b) including deaf-blindness. However, under one of the provisions, the government shall decide on exempting certain establishments from the reservation.
Having regard to the type of work carried out in any establishment, the government, in consultation with the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, 'may exempt any government establishment from the provisions of the reservation'.
Section 34 of the Act provides 4% reservation to persons with benchmark disabilities in appointment; but, as for promotion, one of the provisions says, 'reservation in promotion shall be in accordance with such instructions as are issued by the appropriate government from time to time'.
In December 2022, the government constituted a sub-committee for the provision of 4% reservation in promotion to persons with benchmark disabilities. In the same month, it constituted a high-level committee in this regard. The Secretary of the Human Resources Management Department led the high-level committee, which discussed the reports of the sub-committee in August 2024. Eventually, the high-level committee recommended provision of 4% reservation in promotion to persons with benchmark disabilities.
Based on the recommendations of the high-level committee, the government last week issued orders to provide 4% reservation in promotion to persons with benchmark disabilities. The instructions issued on June 21 this year came into effect from that date.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Print
27 minutes ago
- The Print
What's in Delhi govt's new private school fee regulation bill & why are parents concerned
The new bill aims to ensure uniform fee regulation for all private unaided schools, including minority institutes, as well as those not allotted any government land. Till now, fee regulation in Delhi has applied only to private schools operating on land allotted by the Delhi Development Authority. The bill also prohibits schools from harassing students over unpaid or delayed fees, including measures such as striking off names, withholding results, denying access to classes, or public humiliation. On Monday, Chief Minister Rekha Gupta and Education Minister Ashish Sood introduced the Delhi School Education (Transparency in Fixation and Regulation of Fees) Act, 2025. The move comes three months after they first announced the bill amid a wave of protests by parents over fee hikes by several private schools at the start of the academic session in April. New Delhi: Calling its bill to regulate fees in private schools 'historic', the Delhi government Monday introduced the much-awaited draft legislation in the assembly as parents raised concerns over several of its provisions, including the requirement of at least 15 percent of parents uniting to challenge any fee hike by private schools, terming the condition as 'impractical'. Speaking to the media, ahead of the assembly session, Sood said, 'Today marks a golden day in the history of Delhi's education system. For the first time in 27 years, a historic bill will be introduced in the assembly under the leadership of Chief Minister Rekha Gupta.' The bill was 'aimed at ending the exploitation, pressure, and mental harassment faced by parents over school fees', added Sood. ThePrint explains what the draft bill is and why parents remain unconvinced that it will resolve the issue. How will fee approvals work now? According to the bill, each private school will need to form a School-Level Fee Regulation Committee annually. Constituted by 15 July of every academic year, the committee will include five parents from the Parent-Teacher Association (PTA), as selected in a draw of lots. It must also include at least two women and at least one other member from the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, or socially and educationally backwards classes. Additionally, a representative from the Directorate of Education (DoE) will be part of the committee. The chairperson will be a representative of the school management. Once the committee is in place, the school management should submit the proposed fee structure and all other relevant records, considering 31 July as the deadline to do so. For the next three academic years, the fee structure will stay fixed. The committee will have the authority to review and approve the fees, but cannot approve an amount higher than the one proposed by management. It may revise the amount downward. The committee must decide on the fee within 30 days of receiving the proposal. Once approved, the fee structure will be on the school notice board in Hindi, English, and the medium of instruction. If the school has a website, the approved fee must also be published there. What the School-Level Fee Regulation Committee approves will be binding on the school for the next three academic years. The committee will also specify the various heads under which private schools can charge fees. Also Read: Two realities of NEP: Sensory classrooms & hi-tech labs, to kids sitting on floor & no teachers What happens if parents aren't satisfied? The bill mandates that any challenge to the decision of the School-Level Fee Regulation Committee must come from an 'Aggrieved Parents Group', comprising at least 15 percent of the total number of parents in the school. Only when supported by at least 15 percent of the parent body, a fee-related grievance will be considered. When it wishes to challenge the School-Level Fee Regulation Committee, the 'Aggrieved Parents Group' can approach the District Fee Appellate Committee—constituted by the Director of Education, chaired by the district Deputy Director of Education, and including representatives from the school management and the parent-teacher association, and a chartered accountant. The District Fee Appellate Committee must communicate its decision on any fee dispute within 30 days of receiving the appeal, and no later than 45 days within the same academic year. If it fails to do so, the matter will automatically be referred to the Revision Committee, as specified in the Act. If the 'Aggrieved Parents Group' or school management is dissatisfied with the decision, they could file an appeal before the Revision Committee within 30 days. The Revision Committee will be notified by the government and chaired by an eminent person with notable contributions in the field of education. It will also have representatives from the parents and the school. The bill proposes strict penalties for non-compliance, with fines ranging from Rs 1 lakh to Rs 10 lakh. In cases of non-payment, the government can seize and sell the movable or immovable property of the school management, appoint a receiver to manage assets, or take any other recovery action, as prescribed in the bill. However, it will not impose a penalty without hearing both parties and giving adequate time. Sudha Acharya, principal of ITL public school, said the school has already constituted the school level committee. 'We will try to take parents on board right from the beginning so that there is no need to go to the district committee. It's too early to comment on the bill. Let it first be pass and come into effect,' she said. Why are parents raising concerns? Among the various concerns parents are raising over the proposed bill, the most important is how the bill defines 'aggrieved parents'. It would deprive individual parents of their right to raise a complaint, they argue. 'Requiring a minimum of 15 percent of a school's parents to challenge the school-level Fee Regulatory Committee's decision before the district committee is nearly impossible. It effectively denies parents the right to contest arbitrary fee hikes,' said Ashok Agarwal, chairperson of All India Parents Association. Parents are also raising concerns over the selection process for parent representatives in the school-level committee. 'Why cannot there be elections instead? Who will ensure the draw of lots is fair and free from discrepancies? How do you guarantee transparency?' asked Shikha Bhagga, a lawyer and member of the Forum of Indian Parents. Bhagga also questioned the criteria to determine fees. 'Infrastructure should not be a factor in deciding the fee—it is the school's asset, not the responsibility of the students. Both the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court have held in several cases that infrastructure has no direct bearing on fees,' she said. Moreover, parents are showing concern over one of the clauses—the fees, which schools will charge, starting 1 April 2025, will be the proposed fee for the 2025–26 academic year. 'Many schools hiked fees illegally this year without any approval, and they continue to charge them. The bill not only allows that but effectively legitimises it,' Bhagga added. Questioning the bill, AAP's Atishi called it a deliberate attempt by the BJP government to protect the interests of private schools, rather than those of the students and parents. 'The government intentionally delayed the bill from April to July, allowing schools to hike fees unchecked and extort money from parents. The biggest concern is that the bill includes no provision to roll back these fee hikes, effectively legitimising them. This bill serves private school owners, not the public,' she said in a press conference. (Edited by Madhurita Goswami) Also Read: 'Honest history, not ideology'—NCERT social science panel chief on changes in Class 8 textbook
Time of India
42 minutes ago
- Time of India
10k RTI cases resolved in a year, none pending: CIC
Gandhinagar: Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) Subhash Soni on Monday stated that nearly 10,000 cases filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act last year have been resolved, and currently, no case was pending with the commission. He also mentioned that around 250 significant decisions by the commission were made available online for public access. At an event held in Gandhinagar on Monday, revised editions of three booklets prepared under the RTI Act were released, and a podcast created using artificial intelligence (AI) was unveiled by Soni and former CIC Amrut Patel. Soni added that the commission's activities are also being actively shared through social media platforms. Quoting former CIC Amrut Patel, the statement said that the absence of any pending cases in the Gujarat Information Commission was commendable. Patel added that due to various efforts—such as addressing RTI complaints and appeals promptly and leveraging social media—citizens have benefitted significantly. You Can Also Check: Ahmedabad AQI | Weather in Ahmedabad | Bank Holidays in Ahmedabad | Public Holidays in Ahmedabad Commenting on the measures recommended by the commission, Soni said that the state govt has accepted proposals to provide up to five pages of information free of cost, allow photography of documents, and permit the sharing of information via digital storage devices.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
Green regulators can seek bank guarantees from polluters: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that environmental regulators, such as the Pollution Control Boards, can impose environmental compensation and seek bank guarantees from polluting entities as part of their preventive measures against potential environmental damage. 'We hold that the environmental regulators, the Pollution Control Boards, can impose and collect as restitutionary and compensatory damages fixed sums of money or require furnishing bank guarantees as an ex-ante measure towards potential environmental damage in exercise of powers under Sections 33A and 31A of the Water and Air Acts,' the Supreme Court said. A Bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra held that such actions by State Boards are lawful and fall within their powers. However, the Bench stressed that this authority must be exercised fairly and transparently. 'While we hold that the Boards have the power to direct the payment of environmental damages, we make it clear that this power must always be guided by two overarching principles. First, that the power cannot be exercised in an arbitrary manner; and second, the process of exercising this power must be infused with transparency,' the judgment said. The court emphasized that such action must be distinguished from a penalty. 'There is a distinction between a direction for payment of restitutionary and compensatory damages as a remedial measure for environmental damage or as an ex-ante measure towards potential environmental damage on the one hand; and a punitive action of fine or imprisonment for violations under Chapters VII of the Water Act and VI of the Air Act on the other hand.' The Bench also referred to the polluter pays principle in Indian environmental jurisprudence, stating that actual environmental degradation is not a prerequisite for demanding compensation. Instead, the potential for environmental harm is sufficient. 'The actual degradation of the environment is not a necessary condition for the application of the polluter pays principle, as long as the offending activities have the potential of degrading the environment," the judgment said. The Court also echoed the view taken by the National Green Tribunal in Swastik Ispat Pvt Ltd, where the tribunal had upheld the use of bank guarantees as a lawful method of securing environmental compliance. In the present case, the Delhi Pollution Control Committee had appealed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court, which had held that it was not empowered to levy compensatory damages under Section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and Section 31A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. The High Court ruled that such action amounted to a penalty under Chapters VII and VI of the respective Acts, and as such, the procedure for imposing and collecting compensatory damages outlined thereunder should be the only method available.
