Since last 2-3 weeks I am just writing news or other articles from various sources of Internet. Basically whatever I found interesting on Net I post the same to my blog also.
I am not aware whether it will affect my page rank as the articles are from the other sources of net.
My sole aim of blogging is earning money.
If you know something please suggest.
April 10, 2008 11:26 IST
Last Updated: April 10, 2008 12:47 ISTIn a major boost to reservation, the Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the Constitution amendment law providing for 27 per cent quota for Other Backward Classes in IITs, IIMs and other Central educational institutions, but excluded the creamy layer from the benefit.
Coverage: The Reservation Issue
A five-judge Constitution bench cleared the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 providing for the quota, by a unanimous verdict.
The bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan excluded the creamy layer among the OBCs from the quota benefit.
The court held that the Act does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution.
The verdict came on a bunch of petitions by anti-quota activists challenging the Act. They vehemently opposed government's move saying caste cannot be the starting point for identifying backward classes.
The inclusion of creamy layer in the reservation policy was also questioned by the anti-quota petitioners.
With this judgment, the interim order of March 29, 2007 staying the implementation of the Act has been lifted.
In effect, the reservation policy can be put in place for the 2008-09 academic session.The court held that the Constitution (93rd Amendment) Act, under which the government came out with the law providing 27 per cent quota in Centrally-aided institutions, was not violative of the basic structure of the Constitution.
All judges favoured periodic revision on the implementation of the 27 per cent quota.
The court ruled that the delegation of power to the Centre to determine OBCs was valid.
The parameter applied for identifying the creamy layer among the OBCs for jobs as per the office memorandum of September 8, 1993, will be applicable, the court said.
It also held as valid the exclusion of minority institutions from the ambit of quota under the Act.
Besides the Chief Justice, the bench comprised Justices Arijit Pasayat, C K Thakker, R V Raveendran and Dalveer Bhandari.
The head of the International Olympic Committee has said the Beijing Games will rebound from "crisis" after days of protests along the torch route.
Jacques Rogge told a meeting of national committees in the Chinese capital that they should assure their countries the Games would succeed.
The US stage of the torch relay passed off amid confusion and tight security in San Francisco on Wednesday.
The route was totally changed at the last minute amid anti-Chinese protests.
Torch-bearers were immersed in a cocoon of security, surrounded by dozens of police officers and Chinese guards in track-suits.
LONDON: An estimated 30,000 Indians and 19,000 other non-Europeans successfully overturned the British government's hardline new rules for highly-skilled migrant workers on Tuesday with the High Court decisively ruling the immigration changes "unlawful" and a rank "abuse of (administrative) power".
Tuesday's legal triumph for the Highly-Skilled Migrant Programme (HSMP), the non-profit campaign organisation that was the lead appellant in the 14-month case, puts Britain's progressively-tighter immigration policies under the microscope.
It comes almost exactly six months after thousands of Indian doctors won their High Court challenge to the British government to force it to treat them on a par with European medics.
The High Court judgement dismissed the government's argument that it was in the "public interest...the national interest" retrospectively to apply changes to HSMP visas.
The ruling, by Judge Sir George Newman, means that Britain will be forced to grant entry, residence and/or settlement to non-European Union nationals who entered the UK under the 2002 HSMP rules.
But a defiant government said it wants to appeal.
Newman said, in his landmark judgement, "In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the terms of the original scheme should be honoured and that there is no good reason why those already on the scheme shall not enjoy the benefits of it as originally offered to them. Good administration and straightforward dealing with the public require it. Not to restrain the impact of the changes would, in my judgment, give rise to conspicuous unfairness and an abuse of power."
Flushed with victory, an ebullient Amit Kapadia, the HSMP Forum's executive director, told TOI, "We are relieved and happy and very glad that British justice is available as a last resort when there is a clear abuse of power by the government. This is a lesson for this government and those in the future".
The judge ruled that it was only fair the UK apply the original HSMP rules to thousands of non-European nationals who migrated to the UK in the "legitimate expectation" they were entitled to a year-long stay, a two-year visa extension, then a further three years before applying for settlement.
He ruled it unlawful to apply the 2006 points-based immigration rules to existing HSMP visa-holders as criteria for remaining in the UK.
But the judge ruled that "the old scheme constituted an integrated and entire programme and that it was not open to the government to alter the terms and conditions upon which the pre-arranged stages were to be implemented."
The High Court ruling means that hundreds of Indian HSMP visa-holders who were forced to go back to India can now legitimately ask to return to the UK. It will also finally mean the freedom from fear – of deportation – for 100,000 Indians here, which is thought to signify the total number of HSMP visa-holders and their families.
Indian HSMP visa-holders said they felt "vindicated" in their claim, first revealed by TOI, that they had been suddenly disenfranchised by Britain's allegedly "racist, Idi Amin-style immigration policies".
The HSMP Forum, which brought its legal challenge against the government with the thousands of pounds it collected from its often-impecunious members, said it was a comeuppance for "the immigration department (which) was obsessed with defending their decision and were not open to any reasoning. We had no other recourse but to approach the judiciary".
Highly-skilled Indian workers win court challenge in UK-UK-World-The Times of India
