Facebook Email Previous articleCourt ruling halts airport strikeNext article#video GOING 90 ‘Kings Among Men’ admin Linkedin News#Video Aerial footage of St Johns Cathedral LimerickBy admin – March 12, 2014 845 Twitter Print Thanks to Tony Grehan for sending this in.Sign up for the weekly Limerick Post newsletter Sign Up Advertisement WhatsApp
News UpdatesKerala HC Stays Decision Of ESI Corporation To Cancel ‘The Wards of Insured Persons Quota’ In Medical/Dental Colleges [Read Order] Sparsh Upadhyay18 Oct 2020 8:41 AMShare This – xThe Kerala High Court on Thursday (15th October) stayed further proceedings pursuant to the notice issued by Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) informing that seats filled up in previous years under IP quota in ESIC Medical/Dental colleges would be filled up by DGHS, Government of India as All-India quota seats for 2020-21.The Bench of Justice N. Nagaresh also stayed the decision…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe Kerala High Court on Thursday (15th October) stayed further proceedings pursuant to the notice issued by Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) informing that seats filled up in previous years under IP quota in ESIC Medical/Dental colleges would be filled up by DGHS, Government of India as All-India quota seats for 2020-21.The Bench of Justice N. Nagaresh also stayed the decision taken by the Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) to cancel the IP Quota.The Court specifically observed,”There will be an interim stay on all further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P1 and P2. It is made clear that the respondents may bring up this writ petition in the case the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras gives any clarification/passes any order in this regard.”It may be noted that, Exhibit P1 (in the Writ Petition before the Court) was the Notice issued by Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) informing that seats filled up in previous years under IP quota in ESIC Medical/Dental colleges would be filled up by DGHS, Government of India as All-India quota seats for 2020-21)On the other hand, Exhibit P2 (in the Writ Petition before the Court) was the decision taken by the Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC).to cancel the IP QuotaThe Case of the PetitionerThe petitioners in the present matter approached the Kerala HC, who were applicants for Wards of Insured Persons (IP) Quota seats in ESIC Medical/Dental colleges Employees State Insurance Corporation for academic session 2020-21 and were aggrieved by the notice dated 28.09.2020 issued by the 1st respondent informing that seats filled up in previous years under IP quota in ESIC Medical/Dental colleges would be filled up by DGHS, Government of India as All-India quota seats for 2020-21 (Exhibit P1).Thereafter, vide notice dated 30.09.2020, it was further informed that the decision to cancel IP Quota (Exhibit P2), was taken in view of the common order dated 07.06.2019 of the High Court of Madras in W.P 35853/2016 and 17948/2017 and the Judgement dated 06.08.2019 in W.A No.2274/2019 and 2304/2019 and also the order dated 15.07.2019 of the Apex Court of India in S.L.P (C) Diary No’s 24032/2019.It was submitted by the Petitioners that none of the above-referred orders of the High Court or Supreme Court enables the 1st respondent to cancel or abolish the IP Quota in ESIC Medical/ Dental colleges.Notably, the judgment of the learned single judge of the Madras High Court in WP.35853/2016 and 17948/2017 declared that the reservation policy of ESIC providing 20% reservation to the Wards of Insured Persons as unconstitutional and illegal (Judgment dated 07.06.2019).Further, the Division Bench of the High Court on 06.08.2019, disposed of the writ appeal preferred by the Director-General of ESIC recording the undertaking of the Additional Solicitor General of India that the ESIC shall immediately undertake the admission process in accordance with the relevant rules provided by the reservation of 20% of seats to the Wards of Insured Persons in the medical colleges established by the ESIC.Advocate C Unnikrishnan argued that the Judgment in Writ Appeal (dated 06.08.2019) had become final since the same has not been challenged before the Apex Court nor it is being reviewed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court thus the order of the single bench of Madras HC (07.06.2019/declaring the reservation policy of ESIC providing 20% reservation to the Wards of Insured Persons as unconstitutional and illegal) is not in existence as of now since the same is merged with the Judgment of the learned Division Bench (in Writ Appeal).Therefore, it was argued that the legal position as of now was that none of the judgment and orders referred to by the 1st respondent in Exhibit P2 has any impact on the decision taken to cancel/abolish IP Quota as per Exhibit P1 notice.It was specifically submitted by the Petitioners that Exhibit P1 and P2 are liable to be quashed. For the sake of repetition, both are explained herein:-Exhibit P1 – Notice issued by Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) informing that seats filled up in previous years under IP quota in ESIC Medical/Dental colleges would be filled up by DGHS, Government of India as All-India quota seats for 2020-21)Exhibit P2 – Decision was taken by the Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) to cancel the IP QuotaGrounds pleadedIt was also pleaded before the Court that since no reason was stated in Exhibit P1 to cancel or abolish IP Quota in ESIC Dental/Medical college, the order is cryptic and non-speaking coupled with the fact that Exhibit P2 notice issued in continuation with Exhibit P1 notice is also not supporting the decision informed in Exhibit P1. Therefore, on that ground also Exhibit P1 is liable to be quashed.Importantly, it was submitted that the allotment of seats to ESIC management quota is only to the Wards of the Insured Persons and thus it was only extending the benefit to the economically weaker sections of the Wards of Insured Persons by who’s funds the educational institutions were running thus its policy were not discriminatory and violative of any provisions of law and had introduced this policy after the approval of the government.Therefore the 1st respondent (Employees State Insurance Corporation) cannot casually abolish the medical seats under IP quota to his whims and fancies because the beneficiaries of that scheme are the downtrodden working class and the ESI medical institutions were established with the funds of these employees.It was submitted that the action of the 1st respondent in the scrapping of the 20% reservation policy for the wards of the insured without any reasoning and basis is arbitrary, illegal and irregular.It was most humbly prayed that the High Court may be pleased to:-A. Call for the records relating to the Exhibit P1 and P2 impugned notice and issue a writ of Certiorari or other appropriate writs, order or direction quashing Exts.P1 & P2.B. Declare that Exts.P1 & P2 are illegal, cryptic and non-speaking and cannot be allowed to stand in the eye of law.C. Issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writs, order or direction commanding the respondents to allot Medical /Dental UG seats to the petitioners in the 20% seats of Wards of Insured person quota on the basis of their merit in the NEET ranked list2020.As an Interim Relief it was prayed that the Court stay all further proceedings pursuant to Exhibit P1 and P2 forthwith, pending disposal of the Writ Petition.High Court’s OrderIn the context of the Judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras (Dated 06.08.2019), the Counsel for the petitioner submitted that 20% reservation for the Wards of the Insured Persons should continue.The learned Standing Counsel for ESI Corporation, on the other hand, submitted that Ext. P5 (Dated 06.08.2019) should be treated as confining to the year 2019 admissions only the Single Bench Judgment of the Madras HC (Dated 07.06.2019) was in operation.The Court observed,”The Division Bench of the High Court of Madras (Dated 06.08.2019) decided the issue involved in the Writ Appeal based on the submission made by ESI Corporation through the Additional Solicitor General of India. Prima facie, what is stated in Ext.P5 (Dated 06.08.2019) cannot be treated as for the academic year 2019 alone.”The learned Standing Counsel further submitted that a clarification petition had been filed by the ESI Corporation in the said Writ Appeal and orders are awaited.In the facts of the case, the Court said,”It is of the opinion that if an interim order is not passed, the reservation benefits due to the Wards of Insured Persons which were in existence hitherto, will be denied. In the circumstances, there will be an interim stay on all further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P1 and P2. It is made clear that the respondents may bring up this writ petition in case the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras gives any clarification/passes any order in this regard.” (emphasis supplied)Click Here To Download Order[Read Order]Click Here To Download Petition[Read Petition] Next Story
Twitter/@MissyDePino(PHILADELPHIA) — Two black men were handcuffed and paraded out the door of a Philadelphia Starbucks for allegedly refusing to leave when asked by staffers and police in an incident captured in a video that went viral and prompted the chief executive officer of the coffee company to say the “reprehensible outcome” should have never happened.The video, posted by Melissa DePino, took place at around 4:30 p.m. on Thursday inside of a Starbucks on Spruce Street near South 18th Street.DePino’s footage immediately went viral on Twitter, racking up more than 4 million views.Starbuck’s CEO Kevin Johnson released a statement apologizing to the two men on behalf of the company and saying he hopes to meet with then to “offer a face-to-face apology.”“The video shot by customers is very hard to watch and the actions in it are not representative of our Starbucks mission and values,” Johnson said in his statement released late Saturday. “Creating an environment that is both safe and welcoming for everyone is paramount for every store. Regretfully, our practices and training led to a bad outcome — the basis for the call to the Philadelphia police department was wrong. Our store manager never intended for these men to be arrested and this should never have escalated as it did.”In an interview with ABC News, Melissa DePino, a 50-year-old writer and mother of two, said a Starbucks barista shouted from behind the counter at the two men to make a purchase or leave.“They were sitting quietly minding their own business, and waiting for their friend to come,” she said.DePino said she was so appalled by the incident, she plans to not go anymore to Starbucks.“Plenty of other local places to go,” she said.The incident caught on video also brought criticism from the mayor of Philadelphia, which has the nickname, City of Brotherly Love.Mayor Jim Kenney tweeted: “I’m very concerned by the incident at Starbucks. I know Starbucks is reviewing it and we will be too. @PhillyPolice is conducting an internal investigation.”On Saturday evening, the mayor put out another statement saying he was “heartbroken” to witness what “appears to exemplify what racial discrimination looks like in 2018.”“For many, Starbucks is not just a place to buy a cup of coffee, but a place to meet up with friends or family members, or to get some work done,” he said in the statement.Kenney also said that he had asked the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations to “examine the firm’s policies and procedures” and would be reaching out to Starbucks to “to begin a discussion about this.”He went on to add there would be “a thorough review” of police policies with regard to “complaints like this.”The same day Philadelphia Police Commissioner Richard Ross Jr. posted a detailed account of the incident, in which he defended his officers’ actions.In an almost seven-minute clip, the commissioner said a trespassing and disturbance matter led to Starbucks employees calling 911.He assured the public that he has reviewed the facts and defended the cops, saying they “did absolutely nothing wrong.”“I can tell you candidly these officers did a service they were called to do,” he said.In DePino’s tweet and attached video, she used the Starbucks “@Starbucks” handle to put the company on notice that the two men who “hadn’t ordered anything” while waiting for a friend to arrive were arrested “for doing nothing.”The video shows several police officers in bicycle helmets, and what appears to be a uniformed supervisor inside the coffee shop.In the video, both men appear calm and cooperative as they are led outside by the police officers.The first is a 20-something, bearded black man wearing navy sweatpants, white sneakers and an unzipped grey jacket.His friend is then seen getting cuffed behind his back and wearing a dark sweatshirt and dark jeans.“They didn’t do anything, I saw the entire thing,” said one white man, who started to question the arresting officers. “What did they do wrong?”Clearly outraged, DePino wrote the treatment of the two men was racially unjust.“All the other white ppl are wondering why it’s never happened to us when we do the same thing,” she wrote in the tweet.Starbucks initially responded on Twitter, first saying it was reviewing the incident to see what “led to this unfortunate result” and later posting an apology.“We apologize to the two individuals and our customers for what took place at our Philadelphia store on Thursday,” the tweet states.The company said it was “disappointed this led to an arrest” and that they “take these matters seriously.”Johnson, the CEO, said the company will begin to take a look at its policies to determine whether they need to be updated.“We have immediately begun a thorough investigation of our practices,” Johnson said in his statement. “In addition to our own review, we will work with outside experts and community leaders to understand and adopt best practices.“We also will further train our partners to better know when police assistance is warranted. Additionally, we will host a company-wide meeting next week to share our learnings, discuss some immediate next steps and underscore our long-standing commitment to treating one another with respect and dignity.”After the arrests, Starbucks decided not to press charges and the Philadelphia District Attorney also declined to pursue a case against the two men, who have since reportedly retained attorneys.Still, in his account, the police commissioner’ said the officers’ actions were justified.He said two Starbucks employees called 911, reporting both a trespass and disturbance inside of the establishment.The employees allegedly told the two men they were not permitted to use the restroom since they weren’t paying customers.“And so they asked the two males to leave and they refused to leave and the police were called,” Ross said in the video posted on the department’s Facebook page.The two men were then allegedly told that the police would be called and allegedly responded, “Go ahead and call the police. We don’t care,” according to Ross’s retelling of the police officers’ account.When the cops arrived at the Starbucks, Ross said, they also asked the men to leave and they again refused and one of them allegedly took a verbal jab at the cops saying, ‘You don’t actually know what you’re doing. You’re only a $45,000 a year employee,” Ross stated in the video.Ross said the men were given several chances to leave, but they kept refusing.“On three different occasions the officers asked the two males politely to leave the location because they were being asked to leave by employees because they were trespassing,” he said. “Instead the males continued to refuse as they had told the employees and they told the officers they were not leaving.”Ross said that the police remained professional and they “followed policy and they did what they are supposed to do.”The officers “got the opposite back,” the commissioner said.He also noted that it was only while the men were being processed that they were alerted that Starbucks “no longer wanted to prosecute.”The commissioner also stated that he was speaking “as an African American” beyond being the top cop and that he was “very aware of implicit bias.”He said that he has made it a priority for his department — both rank and file as well as commanders — to receive racially sensitive training that includes taking field trips to the National Museum of African American History and Culture and the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C.“We do this because we want people, our officers, our recruits to understand the minute they come on board to know about the atrocities that were committed by policing around the world,” Ross said.Copyright © 2018, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.