Times Chennai E-PaperMarch 18, 2009Page 2
Chennai, March 18 :
Sonow we have to wait forsome more days to knowwhich way the PMKswings. The party’sgeneral body meeting,scheduled for Wednesdayto decide on pre-pollalliance, has been calledoff, according to partysources.“Till Monday, wewere of the impression thatthe meeting would be heldon Wednesday but sincewe have not been informedabout it even by lateTuesday evening, theymust have called it off,”Party founder SRamadoss fears that thecadre might crossvoteand undermine theparty’s chances ofwinning as many seats asit won in the lastelections. He is alsoconcerned over the partylosing its credibility if itwere to go back to theDMK after the verbalduels betweenRamadoss and CM MKarunanidhi.According toparty sources, AnbumaniRamadoss feels that thePMK vote bank hasshrunk and it would besafer to sail with the VCK.On the other hand, anAIADMK alliance wouldmake it difficult for theparty to win seats, as theAIADMK and MDMK donot have a strong base inthe northern districts. Soit may need the DMK andCongress to win seats inthe region, considered aPMK bastion.
-Agencies
said a district-levelleader, and member ofthe general council.The eleventhhour cancellation of thegeneral body has beenattributed todifferencesamong thetop brass ofthe partyover theissue ofalliance.It issaid thatUnion HealthMinisterAnbumaniRamadoss,favours theDMK-Congress combine, whilesenior leader KaduvettiGuru wants the party togo with the AIADMK-Leftcombine.However, morethan the individualpreferences of theleaders, the largerquestion appears to bethe ability to win and long-term political survival.
Ramadoss postpones alliance decision
Chennai, March 18:
The Tamil Nadu PressPhotographersAssociation on Tuesdayurged the City PoliceCommissioner KRadhakrishnan to initiateaction against theadvocates who wereallegedly preventingthem from doing theirduties and alsoassaulting them. Theassociation membersmet Radhakrishnan at thecommissionerate officeand complained againstthe advocates whoreportedly assaulted theTamil daily photographer.
-Agencies
Take action against lawyers, cops
Chennai March 18
Language bloopers andconceptual questionsdismayed the Class XIIstudents writingEconomics paper of theState Board Examinations,here on Tuesday .The mostcommon complaint was thequestion number 78, whichwas on the elasticity ofdemand. It requiredstudents to explain themethods of measurementof price elasticity ofdemand in detail whereasthe Tamil question wasworded differently and didnot mention that a fewaspects of the question hadto be answered in detail,said an Economics teacherat a Government HigherSecondary School in city.But anotherEconomic teacher said thequestion number 78 wasmore explicit in Englishthan in Tamil. The studentsof Tamil medium attemptedthe question in detail onlybecause it was for 20marks, but the languageblooper had resulted inconfusion for theexaminees, he said.Janaki Raman,an Economics teacher atthe Corporation HigherSecondary School, CITNagar, said six one-markquestions were not as perthe blueprint rules givenby the Department ofGovernmentExaminations. He alsosaid the exam papershould carry questionsonly from the back of thebook but this examcontained questionswhich were conceptualand not exactly thosegiven at the back of thebooks.There was ahuge gap between thequestions given inEnglish and Tamil with noexact translation, he said.It just confused thestudents and a lot of timewas wasted inunderstanding thequestion, he added.According to SugantiRajaraman, anEconomics teacher at aState Board SyllabusSchool in T Nagar, thestudents were baffled asthey attempted the one-mark questions first withthe general assumptionthat they were not verydifficult.CChandrashekhar, aClass XII studentadmitted that thequestion was indeedconfusing but most of hisfriends had attempted itsomehow. However,students of privateschools said that theyencountered no suchproblem while attemptingthe paper. There are atotal of 81 questions inthe exam paper,including three 20-markquestions.
-Agencies
Plus 2 exam blues: Economicspaper hoodwinks
Chennai, Mar 18 :
TheMadras High Court hasordered notice on a quowarranto petitionquestioning the legalvalidity of the appointmentof Mr K Panchalan asRegistrar of IIT-Madras.Admitting thepetition filed by IIT SC/STEmployees WelfareAssociation generalsecretary V Neethinathan,Justice VRamasubramanianyesterday directed the IITadministration and theCentre to file counterwithin two weeks.Seeking toknow under whatauthority Mr Panchalanwas holding the post, thepetitioner sought torestrain him fromfunctioning as registrar.The petitionerfurther submitted that theadvertisement for thepost of registrar issued inAugust 2007 hadstipulated severalconditions tailor-madefor Mr Panchalan.Describing theselection process asmockery, the petitionerassociation wanted theauthorities to recover thesalary from the terminalbenefits of the registrar,scheduled to retire fromservice this month.
-Agencies
HC orders notice on IITRegistrar appointment
Chennai, Mar 18 :
TheMadras High Court hasupheld Tamil Nadu LandReforms (Fixation ofCeiling on Land) SecondAmendment Act, 1994.Dismissing abatch of writ petitions byR Sivashanmugam andothers challenging theconstitutional validity ofthe amendment Act,Justice K Chandru, citingrulings, said it was clearthat the legislature hadthe power to enact aretrospective legislationfor the purpose ofclarifying certainambiguities.The presentamendment did not makea new amendment tosection 22, but only gavea statutory backing to theinterpretation given bythe Supreme Court in acase, the judge said.According to thestatement of objects andreasons, the amendmentwas to make the sectionin consonance with theprinciples laid down bythe Supreme Court and tomake it clear that if anytransfer or partition, hadthe effect of reducing theextent of surplus land inexcess of the ceilingarea, such transfer orpartition whether bonafide or not, should beconstrued as defeatingthe provisions of thelegislation.It was also tomake provisions forvalidating all acts done orproceedings taken by theauthorised officer and toreopen the past cases,based on the apex court's judgment.The Judge saidif an Authorised Officerhad given an order infavour of any of thepetitioners ignoring thelegal provision, such anorder could only be a nullityas it had not taken note ofthe true legislativemeaning as well as theintent and purport ofSection 22.The provision asamended by the impugnedAct had restored thecorrect meaning and thespirit of the Act. The Judgesaid the petitioners had novested right in making atransfer to defeat the verypurpose of the legislativeinjunction over suchtransfers.Further, theamendment itself had putan embargo by prescribinga limitation for reopeningthe issues beyond fiveyears from the date of thegazette notification.
-Agencies
Tamil Nadu Land ReformsAmendment Act upheld
Leave a Comment