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
India Today
2 hours ago
- India Today
Court dismisses plea against BJP MLA's victory in Mumbai's Sion-Koliwada seat
The Bombay High Court has dismissed an election petition filed against BJP legislator Captain R Tamil Selvan, challenging his victory from the 179 Sion-Koliwada Assembly constituency in Milind N Jadhav rejected the petition filed by Congress candidate Ganesh Kumar Yadav, terming it "vague and generic" and lacking the material facts required under the Representation of the People Act, who secured 65,534 votes against Selvan's winning tally of 73,429, had sought to set aside the election result under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act. He alleged that Selvan suppressed key financial information in his nomination affidavit, including a Rs 90 lakh housing loan, an arbitral award of over Rs 2.72 crore in favour of Central Railways, and other liabilities flagged in CRIF and CIBIL reports. Representing Selvan, senior advocate Dr Veerendra Tulzapurkar argued that the allegations were baseless and unsupported by documentary evidence. He stated that the loan pertained to a flat purchased in Selvan's daughter's name and was serviced solely by her, eliminating the need for disclosure. On the arbitral award, Tulzapurkar noted that its execution had been stayed by the High Court, and therefore no enforceable liability further contended that the petitioner had failed to present crucial documents at the outset and had attempted to improve the case at a later stage, undermining the credibility of the counsel, Premlal Krishnan, maintained that the omissions were deliberate and materially affected the election outcome by depriving voters of complete information on Selvan's financial Justice Jadhav ruled that the petition failed to meet the statutory requirement under Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, which mandates a clear and concise statement of material facts. 'Yadav has merely alleged general and vague violations by Selvan without specifying any details whatsoever,' the court decision aligns with Justice Jadhav's earlier criticism in March this year regarding poorly drafted election petitions, where he remarked on the declining standards in legal pleadings submitted in such that Yadav failed to comply with the mandatory legal provisions, the court dismissed the petition at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, stating that unsubstantiated allegations cannot form the basis for invalidating an election.- EndsMust Watch
Deccan Herald
2 hours ago
- Deccan Herald
DPDPA gaps delay privacy promise
Eight years after the landmark K S Puttaswamy judgement affirmed privacy as a fundamental right, its promise remains unfulfilled. The judgement, invoking the Preamble, recognised privacy as an enabling right essential for the fulfillment of all other fundamental rights, including equality. Yet, as automation becomes pervasive across sectors like healthcare and social security, India's legal framework proves inadequate in addressing the biases and discrimination that the Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDPA) 2023 is a step in the right direction, it suffers from significant shortcomings. The Act's Section 7 provides for 'certain legitimate uses', creating loopholes for extensive profiling and automated decisions. This allows personal data collection without explicit consent for various purposes, including state functions and employment, not just when voluntarily provided..A more significant weakness is the Act's failure to define profiling or regulate automated decision-making. In simple terms, automated decision-making means the use of algorithms to make a decision based on certain given facts or a collection of facts. Profiling, on the other hand, means analysing various aspects of an individual to decide about 'automated processing' is defined, it is not used to grant any substantive rights to the affected individuals. This legislative lacuna is glaring, especially given the B N Srikrishna Committee's recommendations for automated safeguards. While Section 8(3) requires data fiduciaries to ensure data accuracy when making decisions that affect the data principal, it doesn't mandate a right to challenge the process itself. This opacity creates an accountability vacuum, making it virtually impossible to challenge unfair or discriminatory consequences of this regulatory vacuum are profound, manifesting in tangible bias and discrimination across vital sectors. In public services, algorithmic systems like Telangana's Samagra Vedika, designed to assess welfare eligibility, have reportedly excluded approximately 15,000 marginalised individuals due to technical glitches or flawed financial sector faces a significant challenge with digital lending algorithms that can inadvertently perpetuate historical biases, leading to unequal access to credit. This was highlighted by a recent incident involving an Indian NBFC, where an Artificial Intelligence(AI) tool miscategorised over 17,000 low-income applicants as high-risk. The system's bias, which favoured applicants with a strong digital footprint and extensive data, was corrected only after crucial human intervention, underscoring the vital role of the 'human-in-the-loop' approach. The incident serves as a powerful reminder that while the RBI's FREE-AI framework is a proactive step, human oversight remains indispensable in AI-driven credit engaged in platform work are also at the mercy of algorithms and automated decision-making. Studies show that unregulated use of AI in the gig economy can be detrimental to platform workers. While states such as Rajasthan and Karnataka have passed bills to regulate platform work, these bills do not address the use of AI by companies to 'manage' their workforce..A case for human cost is compounded by the absence of a 'right to explanation' in the DPDPA. The Act defines 'gain' and 'loss,' but only uses these terms for monetary penalties under Section 33, not to grant relief for the tangible harm caused by automated data processing. Furthermore, since the right not to be solely subjected to automated decision-making has not been incorporated in the DPDP Act, people are left without a remedy in case of discrimination or errors in the automation process. This lack of legal remedy is against the tenet of ubi jus remedium (where there is a right, there is a remedy), given that privacy is a fundamental legislative vacuum in India stands in stark contrast to global frameworks. The European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (EU GDPR) and the United Kingdom's GDPR provide crucial safeguards like mandatory Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIAs) and the right not to be subject to solely automated decisions. These safeguards, along with the EU AI Act's classification of high-risk activities like credit assessment, impose strict requirements on providers, including human oversight and data quality checks. These crucial safeguards are missing from the we reflect on the anniversary of the Puttaswamy judgement, it is clear that its promise of digital rights remains unfulfilled when automated systems can discriminate without our knowledge or consent. India possesses a unique opportunity to lead in ethical AI governance by amending the DPDPA. By including a right to explanation, a clear definition of profiling, and specific regulation of automated decisions, we can fulfil the true promise of privacy and equality in the digital age..(Utkarsh is a final-year law student at RMLNLU, Lucknow; Harshita is a student at National Law University, Jodhpur)
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
Nuclear laws and the role of Opposition
Political parties in India, especially the Opposition, will soon need to take a view on a critical subject with a bearing on the country's energy security and climate change mitigation. The proposal to amend the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damages Act (CLNDA), 2010, and the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), 1962 — which in the past witnessed intense debate — sooner or later, is expected to come up in Parliament. With the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led National Democratic Alliance government indicating its intention to introduce it during the monsoon session, Parliament will revisit the issue whenever the Bills are introduced. The plan is to amend the CLNDA and the AEA to address the vexatious issue of liability on the suppliers of equipment and permit private parties in the field of nuclear energy, respectively. The India-U.S. Civil Nuclear Agreement and the enactment of the CLNDA led to a series of standoffs between the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance government and Opposition parties — the BJP and the Left parties led by CPI(M). Historical context Fifteen years ago, the government introduced a Bill to write laws for compensation to the people for nuclear accidents, as India was not a party to any of the existing conventions. Parliament was engaged in a lengthy debate, as the government preferred the passage of liability along the lines of international covenants. Lack of requisite strength in the Rajya Sabha, dreadful memories of the suffering of people from the 1984 Bhopal gas leak, the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, and the damage to the nuclear reactor at Fukushima, Japan, following an earthquake, provided the backdrop. Sensing an opportunity, the combined opposition pressed to raise the compensation bar on suppliers of nuclear reactor equipment and beyond the immediate compensation liability on the operator. The insertion of the clause rendered the Act dead on arrival. Western country equipment suppliers shied away. An attempt to tweak it a decade ago made little difference, and international response remains lukewarm. In 2007, during the debate around the nuclear deal, questions were raised about whether it was considering amending the AEA, allowing private sector participation. The government then noted that the 1997 report of the Dr. Raja Ramanna Committee had been examined, and a review of the Act had been under consideration since then. Now both issues are scheduled to return on Parliament's agenda. Raising concerns In February this year, the Congress raised objections to the announcement to amend the Acts. It said the move dilutes accountability of suppliers, raises domestic risk, and protects equipment suppliers, reflecting the Convention on Supplementary Compensation, compromising the citizens' safety, and leaning in favour of international corporations. The party also alleged that the move was intended to appease foreign interests, particularly France and the U.S., ahead of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's visit. Back in 2010, then-Prime Minister Manmohan Singh stated that the process for compensation for nuclear accidents began in 1999, and such a law was needed. The government then dismissed claims that the proposed law was timed with a visit by President Barack Obama. Now, the central issue is whether the Congress will take a studied stance on the proposed legislation. There is a serious debate taking place outside on the move to build small modular reactors, with many countries vying to have a piece of the pie. The contribution of energy from nuclear power is estimated to be slightly over 3% of the total power generation. At the end of last year, the installed capacity of 24 nuclear power plants stood at 8.8 GW, the government informed Parliament. This was when the country set a target of 10 GW by the year 2000. The government now aims for 22.48 GW by 2031-32 and an ambitious 100 GW by 2047. In the past, the Opposition took an about-turn on three key issues. At the turn of the century, opposition led to a delay in enacting an amendment to the Patents Act, 1970. Eventually, after a change of sides, the Opposition's support resulted in the mandatory amendment. A decade ago, on two other contentious issues, the Opposition stalled laws, one on insurance law to raise the foreign direct investment ceiling, and the ratification of the exchange of enclaves with Bangladesh under the Land Border Agreement. Finally, these proposed laws were enacted with the then-Opposition offering support, with minor or no concessions. Leaders across the aisle walked together to arrive at an agreed position as the governments of the day worked, in their assessment, to further the national interest. Need for a debate Today, the NDA government does not have to look across the aisle for support. The current issues have long-term implications, and there is a need for a well-rounded discussion that takes into account all factors around nuclear energy, the shift towards small modular reactors, the larger question of disposal of nuclear waste, and allied subjects. The Opposition should play a leading role in initiating this discussion and decide accordingly. Otherwise, during a debate on a contentious issue two decades ago, a member on the Treasury Benches remarked to another member of the Opposition that a change of sides should not result in a change of stand. K. V. Prasad is a senior Delhi-based journalist and authored a book Indian Parliament Shaping Foreign Policy
