text:
Bus riders and County roads left in the dust after Legislature's inaction to support sustainable funding for transportation
Senate Bill 6582 and House Bill 2751 are sitting on the shelf, leaving the future of bus rider commutes and the maintenance of County roads unknown. King County Executive Dow Constantine plans to address the County Council.
"The people of King County needed action by the state Legislature on a sustainable, long-term transportation solution, but for the third year in a row, they have been left standing on the curb," said Constantine in a press release.
The local transportation revenue options bill, 6582 is still in process. Different from 6582, the House Bill 2751 contains an increase in the Transportation Benefit District vehicle authority from $20 to $40 upon approval of two-third majority of the council. Also in this bill is a countywide local-option motor vehicle tax of one percent.
"Despite having the votes and bipartisan support for 'local-option' bills to allow counties to ask voters for desperately-needed transit and road revenues, lawmakers failed to bring those bills to the floor," he said.
Seattle bus riders and County roads have been sorely affected due to these stagnant bills that are in desperate need of attention.
After the expiration of the temporary Congestion Reduction Charge (CRC) that was enacted after a groundswell of public support, sustainable funding for transit is needed within two years.
Since the passage of the CRC, Metro has deferred devastating cuts to the Metro system that would have affected the commutes of four out of five riders.
Funding County roads across the state has not been revisited in the last 25 years; Constantine said it no longer works. Due to the state's failure to address such funding, a sharp decline resulted in the layoff of 111 needed County roads workers in the last 2 years – a total reduction of nearly one in five – ensuring that only the highest-priority roads that serve the most residents will be fully maintained.
"As a consequence of the Legislature's inaction, more roads workers must be eliminated, further eroding our ability to repair and maintain County roads in the unincorporated area. And once we let the quality of our roads system decline, it is that much more difficult and expensive to bring it back," said Constantine in a press release.
Constantine plans to have a discussion with members of the County Council about how they will deal with the consequences of this legislative session.
"I appreciate the time and service of all the legislators who worked in good faith to find common-sense solutions for Washingtonians given the state's difficult budget, including preserving funding for K-12 and higher education, and I applaud the Governor for her work to hold the Legislature's feet to the fire. But on transportation, the job simply did not get done," said Constantine.
We encourage our readers to comment. No registration is required. We ask that you keep your comments free of profanity and keep them civil. They are moderated and objectionable comments will be removed.


text:
Hello, new to the site and the WRX world.
While driving home after picking up the "new" ride the cruise stopped working ( worked fine for 400 miles ). It just cut off in the middle of TX. The light on the switch will illuminate but once I engage the "Set" it never catches and the orange LED shuts off. It will not come back on until I cycle the key off-on but it has never worked since.
I notice the module sits directly above the turbo plus there is no cover or heat deflector over mine. I ran the search function with nothing specific to my model. I did discover that the 02-03 models do not have a cruise indicator in the gauge cluster that would indicate a problem.
Background, the CEL is on due to broken wires to the front or pre-cat O2. I have seen where the 04+ models will flash the CC inidcator in addition to the CEL when an O2 problem is detected? Thanks in advance for any help!

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Bruns, Axel & Jacobs, Joanne (2006) Introduction. In Bruns, Axel & Jacobs, Joanne (Eds.) Uses of blogs. Peter Lang, New York, pp. 1-8.
Uses of Blogs brings together scholars and practitioners from a wide range of fields to offer a broad spectrum of perspectives on current and emerging uses of blogs. Blogging is rapidly developing into a mainstream activity for Internet users, but beyond the popular headlines, there has been very little serious research done on their actual application in specific, everyday contexts. One reason for this is that the variety of styles of blogging - news blogs and political commentary blogs, marketing blogs, corporate dark blogs, fictional blogs, educational blogs, to name just a few - make it difficult to generalize and to imagine how blogs might be used in particular environments. This pathbreaking new book demonstrates the application of blogs and blogging in the full range of industrial and social contexts.
Impact and interest:
Citation counts are sourced monthly from Scopus and Web of Science® citation databases.
These databases contain citations from different subsets of available publications and different time periods and thus the citation count from each is usually different. Some works are not in either database and no count is displayed. Scopus includes citations from articles published in 1996 onwards, and Web of Science® generally from 1980 onwards.
Citations counts from the Google Scholar™ indexing service can be viewed at the linked Google Scholar™ search.
|ID Code:
|Item Type:
|Book Chapter
|Additional Information:
|For more information, please refer to the publisher's website (see hypertext link) or contact the author.
Author contact details: firstname.lastname@example.com
|Additional URLs:
|blogs, blogging, online publishing, Internet
|Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classification > LANGUAGES COMMUNICATION AND CULTURE (200000) > CULTURAL STUDIES (200200)
Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classification > STUDIES IN CREATIVE ARTS AND WRITING (190000) > JOURNALISM AND PROFESSIONAL WRITING (190300)
|Current > QUT Faculties and Divisions > Creative Industries Faculty
|Copyright Owner:
|Copyright 2006 Peter Lang
|Deposited On:
|02 Aug 2007 00:00
|Last Modified:
|10 Oct 2015 14:12
Export: EndNote | Dublin Core | BibTeX
Repository Staff Only: item control page


text:
1. Deliver unsurpassed customer service to every customer
We will fulfill this mission by achieving the following goals every day:
What really stokes our coals is to turn somebody on to some really cool, comfortable shoes, and watch them walk out the door knowing they'll never feel the same about their feet again. Our look may be far forward and progressive (some call us the "bleeding edge" of footwear retailing) but our methods are very traditional. We want to pamper you in the kind of service you don't get in retail stores anymore. We want to put on a show for you, with our products as the stars of the show.


text:
Association of Bridal Consultants LNG Ventura/Santa Barbara
Camarillo Chamber of Commerce Old Town Association
Thursday, May 2, 2013 from 6:00 PM to 9:00 PM (PDT)
Who's Going
San Francisco, California
London, United Kingdom
Florence, Italy
Event Details
Join us for some amazing food by Candace Hilger at Twenty88. This amazing wine bistro has some of the best wine and food. Check out their website and their menu to get an idea of what's in store for you at the first 2013 ABC LNG event.
Your ticket price includes a pre-set menu (details below!). Alcoholic beverages may be purchased at the restaurant for an additional fee.
Side salad, entree, dessert, and a non-alcoholic drink.
(First course)
Bistro salad or roma tomato Bisque
(2nd Course- Choice of)
Port wine chicken-seared chicken breast, warm brie, sautéed spinach, mashed potatoes, and port wine sauce
Spinach ravioli with fried spinach, goat cheese and arbiatta sauce
Truffle bacon macaroni and cheese
2088 sliders and blu fries
Parking is available on the street and nearby the restaurant.
Our guest speaker will be Michelle D'Ana from the County of Ventura who will be discussing the Special Events Permitting process. Topics will include when you need a permit, why you need one, how to obtain one, etc. This will count towards any professional education credits that the ABC or other professional organization requires you meet each year.
When & Where
Twenty88 Wine Bistro
2088 Ventura Blvd.
Thursday, May 2, 2013 from 6:00 PM to 9:00 PM (PDT)
Add to my calendar
Camarillo Chamber of Commerce Old Town Association
The mission of the Old Town Association is to preserve the heart and soul of Old Town, to keep it uniquely Camarillan, and to promote businesses and events located in the Old Town District.


text:
Q. I purchased a condo over a year ago and I rent it to my parents, who are retired. I purchased a unit in this building because of the pool, the exercise room, sauna and other amenities. I was using the gym weekly up until recently. One of the board members informed me that since I did not live on the premises, I had no right to use the facilities. He informed me that this is a condo rule and I must abide by the rules. This means my parents are more than welcome to use the facilities but I am not. Is this condo law? I pay the monthly condo fees, etc., not my parents. What are my rights as the condo owner of this unit?
It depends. No such restriction can be imposed on you by a condo rule or by a resolution of the board. However, if the board of directors has passed a bylaw restricting non-resident owners the use of the common element amenities then you are obligated to follow the bylaw and cannot use the facilities.
My advice to you would be to access the condo records to find out if the board of directors passed a bylaw and had it approved by a vote of owners of a majority of the units.
The records would indicate that a meeting of owners was called and conducted in order to confirm a bylaw. The bylaw must also have been registered, together with a certificate executed by the corporation, to show that the bylaw was made in accordance with the Condominium Act of Ontario. An officer of the corporation must have certified a copy of the bylaw as a true copy, and the corporation should have registered the copy in the land registry office.
Marilyn Lincoln is a condo owner, director and author of The Condominium Self Management Guide 2nd ed. Email email@example.com with questions. To order a copy of her guide, send $39.95 plus $8.98 shipping and handling to The Condo Guide, 163 Thaler Ave., Suite 302, Kitchener, Ont. N2A 1R4


text: Red Carpet at Austin Fashion Week awards show. Thanks to Moss Designer Consignment for the Herve Leger dress and to Brandi Cowley of Propaganda Hair group for the hair + make-up! getting ready to go LIVE on YNN Austin Anne interviews New York based Designer, Jamie McCarty. LIVE Style guru and The Austin Chronicle's Fashion Editor Stephen Moser poses with Anne Hudson and Jacki OH. LIVE on YNN Anne Hudson and Ashley Hargrove of DTK Austin Photo 1 of 1 Continue Gallery


text:
Lauren is unlikely to return until the New Year.
The right back last featured for Arsenal on January 21 when his side beat Wigan 2-1 in the Carling Cup Semi-Final second leg. The 29-year-old Cameroon international went in for surgery on his knee soon after that. It has been a long road back for the former Real Mallorca player and, it seems, there is some distance left to travel.
"I don't think you will see Lauren in the team before January," said Arsène Wenger on Friday.
"He played up to the limit of his pain and then maybe he played a little too long. That created some damage in his knee which had to be repaired.
"But he is a tough, tough boy. He works hard and he will come back. He is making good progress but he still has four or five weeks before he comes back to normal training and then it will take a month's full training to come back into the team."
Getting his place back could be just as tough as getting fit. Emmanuel Eboue filled the role with aplomb last season and won the Arsenal.com Player of the Month award for September.
"There is no first-choice right back," explained Wenger when the issue was put to him. "The first-choice right back is the one who plays in the next game. This team now is not dependant on one player in any position on the pitch. Everybody has tough competition to stay in the side."


text:
Texas Acquires Garza from Cubs for 3 Players
Cards Won't See GarzaCubs pitcher remains sidelined for weekend series at Wrigley, with triceps injury.
Cubs Breeze Past Cards, 3-0Aramis Ramirez's 2-run HR was all Northsiders needed on Saturday.
Cards Come Apart After DelaySt. Louis starter Jake Westbrook became unglued following the rain delay, when the Cubs batted around.


text:
ASK A QUESTION What's the common way of saying "you're welcome" in Spanish?
Is there an idiomatic phrase or would I use a literal translation such as "tu eres bienvenido"?
8 Answers
"De nada", as stated, or "por nada", which is more like, "it was nothing".
"Con placer (with pleasure)" is always good as well. In our family though, it is a "de nada" fest.
"No hay de que" is pretty common. Sometimes I hear "tranquilo", meaning something roughly similar to "don't mention it."
In Costa Rica, if someone says "Gracias", you do not say "De nada".....no one says that.
Instead, we replace it with "Mucho Gusto" or "Con Mucho Gusto"
De nada, which literally means "of nothing".
"de nada" is the most common, but you can also say "con gusto" if you want to be a little more formal
de nada
This has been discussed before. Try this link,
Another phrase that is sometimes used (very similar to the answer that Calvo gave):
no hay porqué
Literally this means "there is no reason [to thank me]"


text: Should be no need to change to a larger caliber due to heavy clothing garments. If you carry quality premium defensive ammo (Win. Ranger, Federal HST, etc.) you will have no issues with penetrating heavy clothing at all. If your pistol will reliably cycle the 147-grain loads, I would recommend them and Federal HST. It's usually available fom places such as Ammunition to Go but they are currently experiencing a large recent backlog of orders.


text:
Managing Multiple Product Types
JBG takes great pride in and embraces the responsibility that accompanies all of its development activities. In order to create the most desirable environments, JBG has cultivated product-focused teams led by a skilled senior development officer in each of the following product types: office, residential, retail and hotel.
This wider range of expertise gives the firm a distinct advantage when it comes to mixed-use developments. The complex challenges inherent in mixed-use development can only be successfully managed by a company with such broad capabilities. NAIOP, the commercial real estate development association, selected JBG as its 2012 National Developer of the Year for its high-quality projects as well as its ability to develop and manage many product types, from residential to retail to hotels and large government buildings.
JBG has worked with world-renowned architecture firms including Richard Rogers Partnership, Michael Graves & Associates, Pei Cobb Fried, Kohn Pedersen Fox and others on projects in and around the Washington metropolitan market.
Item Heading
The JBG Construction Management group provides best-in-class preconstruction and construction services for its development projects. JBG's construction experts possess a wealth of specialized experience that ensures that each project is completed on time and on budget while maintaining JBG's standard of excellence. The team has successfully managed more than $1 billion in construction value in the last five years.
Featured Properties
Central Place Residential
Step inside the most sophisticated and visually exciting residence to come to Washington, DC Metropolitan Area. With an ideal location and remarkable views of the nation's capital, Central Place not only redefines the local skyline, it redefines high-expectation living.… [More]
CEB Tower at Central Place
Located at 1201 Wilson Boulevard at the corner of North Lynn Street is 570,000 square feet of trophy office space – CEB Tower at Central Place. A graceful presence of steel and glass, capped by a dramatic observation deck. Thirty-one stories of inspiring architecture created by the award-winning firm, Beyer … [More]
The Exchange at Potomac Yard
The Exchange at Potomac Yard is a 14-acre mixed use development comprised of a town center with 46,000 SF of future retail facing an activated central plaza, 973,000 SF office comprised of six buildings including the future National Industries for the Blind and the future Institute for Defense Analysis, and … [More]
4747 Bethesda
The 4747 Bethesda Avenue mixed-use development of new office and retail is located in the heart of downtown Bethesda. Located directly adjacent to the vibrant shopping, entertainment and dining at Bethesda Row, 4747 Bethesda will extend the retail and pedestrian experience of Bethesda Row towards Wisconsin Avenue. This project will … [More]
900 16th Street
900 Sixteenth is a new trophy office building located on the corner of 16th Street NW & Eye Street NW just one block north of Lafayette Square and the White House. Designed by world-renowned architect Robert A.M. Stern, 900 Sixteenth offers 127,600-square-feet of trophy office space, much of which will … [More]
VY / Reston Heights
VY is your escape from the daily grind, and your double espresso to go. Your morning workout at the KICK Fitness Center, and your power nap by the pool. VY is your front door to on-site shops and restaurants, and your walkable, bikeable, beeline to Metro. This is VY. Brand … [More]
Fort Totten Square
Fort Totten Square is a Class A residential and retail building comprised of 350 apartments, 130,000 square feet of retail, including a urban-format Walmart with full-service grocery and pharmacy. Nearby the Fort Totten Square Metro station in Washington, D.C., Fort Totten Square brings an exciting shopping, dining and living experience … [More]
Atlantic Plumbing
Atlantic Plumbing is a Class A residential and retail building at the intersection of 8th and V Streets in the U Street Corridor in Northwest Washington, D.C.… [More]


text:
Dr. Jill Robertson, Halifax, Nova Scotia
Add a Rating for Doctor Robertson
NOT ALL DOCTORS listed on this website may be accepting new patients. Although we do our best to maintain a current database, contact information and their ability to accept new patients changes rapidly. If you detect an error in any contact information, please click here to let us know.
Doctor Robertson 6 Ratings (Avg Rating: 4.88)
Crossroads Family Practice
201 5110 St. Margaret's Bay Rd
Nova Scotia
Phone: 902 826 9096
Fax: 902 820 9399
Moms and Dads Wanted !


text:
Encontrar un ejemplar en la biblioteca
Encontrando bibliotecas que tienen este material…
Psychological fiction
|Formato físico adicional:
|Online version:
Hollinghurst, Alan.
Folding star.
New York : Pantheon Books, ©1994
|Tipo de material:
|Tipo de documento
|Todos autores / colaboradores:
Alan Hollinghurst
|0679436057 9780679436058
|Número OCLC:
|Lambda Literary Award, 1994
|422 pages ; 25 cm
|Alan Hollinghurst.
"Edward Manners - thirty-three, disaffected, in search of a new life - has come to an ancient Flemish city to teach English. Almost at once he falls in love with one of his pupils, the seventeen-year-old Luc Altidore, recently expelled from school for some mysterious offense. Condemned to a mounting but incommunicable obsession with the boy, Edward becomes involved in affairs with two other men: one a heartless but seductive fraud, the other a young drifter with a deeply possessive streak." "Then Edward is introduced to the world of the enigmatic and reclusive Symbolist painter Edgard Orst. Gradually he is drawn toward an understanding of the artist's own obsession with a famous actress, drowned off Ostend at the turn of the century, and of the ambiguous circumstances of Orst's own death under Nazi occupation." "The events of The Folding Star are played out amid the silent streets and canals of a city that seems locked in the past, and across the northern landscape of out-of-season resorts and abandoned houses that lies beyond. But in the central panel of the novel's triptych Edward returns home for a funeral and is caught up in memories of his own late adolescence and his first love affair: an English pastoral already threatened by the experience of betrayal and loss."--Jacket.
Reseñas contribuidas por usuarios
Materiales similares
- British -- Belgium -- Fiction.
- Flanders (Belgium) -- Fiction.
- English teachers -- Fiction.
- Gay men -- Fiction.
- England -- Fiction.
- Psychological fiction.
- British.
- English teachers.
- Gay men.
- Belgium.
- Belgium -- Flanders.
- England.
Listas de usuarios con este material (4)
- James Tait Black Memorial Prize winners and finalists for fiction(140 material)
por I-UNIVLIB Actualizado 2010-01-04
- Man Booker Prize winners and finalists(262 material)
por I-UNIVLIB Actualizado 2009-11-01
- In Love(150 material)
por unllgbtqrc Actualizado 2009-05-04
- Gay Lit(22 material)
por ZeeGeezer


text:
O'Donnell wrongly claimed people view Bush more favorably than Hillary Clinton
Research ››› ››› JULIE MILLICAN
MSNBC's Norah O'Donnell wrongly claimed that, in a hypothetical presidential campaign between President Bush and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Bush would win because Clinton has "a question about likability and authenticity and a sense of trust." In fact, public opinion polls indicate that Clinton has a higher favorability rating and is viewed as more trustworthy than Bush, and their likability ratings are roughly equal.
While discussing a hypothetical presidential campaign between President Bush and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) on the July 2 edition of the NBC-syndicated Chris Matthews Show, MSNBC chief Washington correspondent Norah O'Donnell wrongly claimed Bush would win because Clinton has "a question about likability and authenticity and a sense of trust." Bush, O'Donnell continued, would be in a stronger position because people "know where he stands on an issue, and he is a wisecracker." In fact, public opinion polls indicate that Clinton has a higher favorability rating and is viewed as more trustworthy than Bush, and their likability ratings are roughly equal.
Contrary to O'Donnell's assertion, more people view Clinton favorably than Bush. For instance, a recent Gallup poll (subscription required) asking respondents whether they viewed Bush and Clinton favorably or unfavorably found that 51 percent said they viewed Clinton favorably compared with 40 percent who said they viewed Bush favorably. The poll was conducted June 23-25. Additionally, a Diageo Hotline poll (subscription required) conducted June 22-25 found Clinton to have a higher favorability rating than Bush, 49 percent to 42 percent, respectively.
Polls have also shown that the public finds Clinton more honest and trustworthy than Bush. An ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted May 11-15 asked respondents whether the statement "she is honest and trustworthy" applied to Clinton, and 52 percent of respondents said it did. By contrast, an ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted March 2-5 that asked the same question about Bush indicated that only 44 percent said that Bush was "honest and trustworthy." A more recent USA Today/Gallup poll conducted April 28-30 which asked a similar question indicated only 41 percent said Bush "[i]s honest and trustworthy." A CNN poll conducted April 21-23 yielded similar results, with 40 percent indicating the label "honest and trustworthy" applied to Bush.
Further, Bush does not appear to be viewed as significantly more likeable than Clinton. A March 6-8 Associated Press/Ipsos poll indicated 59 percent of those surveyed found Bush to be likable. Comparatively, the aforementioned May 11-15 ABC News/Washington Post poll asked respondents whether they regarded Clinton as an "open and friendly person;" 58 percent responded affirmatively.
From the July 2 edition of the NBC-syndicated Chris Matthews Show:
MATTHEWS: OK, if an election were held today, same ballot, George W. Bush versus Hillary Clinton, who would win?
O'DONNELL: My hunch is George W. Bush.
CLARENCE PAGE (Chicago Tribune columnist): That's my hunch, too.
KATHLEEN PARKER (syndicated columnist): Bush.
DANA MILBANK (Washington Post staff writer): Sorry, it's W.
MATTHEWS: Why is there such a dichotomy between people's prospects right now in this room, this weekend, that Bill [Clinton] would win but Hillary would lose? Norah.
O'DONNELL: Because I think, ultimately, what people look at in a commander in chief is not only their policies, but there is a question about likability and authenticity and a sense of trust that you get. And I think that that is one of the biggest challenges that Senator Clinton has.
MATTHEWS: So even with Monica [Lewinsky] and all the rest, Bill Clinton still comes off as a guy who's sunny, upbeat, likable --
O'DONNELL: Optimistic.
MATTHEWS: Optimistic and truthful, in a way.
O'DONNELL: Yes, and, you know, there has always been this thing about President Bush, is that people love him and people hate him, but they know where he stands on an issue. And he is a wisecracker, and that gets him something.
- Posted In
- Government
- Network/Outlet
- Person
- Norah O'Donnell
- Show/Publication
- Hardball
- Stories/Interests
- Propaganda/Noise Machine, Hillary Clinton
Instructions for signing up and claiming your comment history are located here.
Updated rules for commenting are here.


text:
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI Transferred Application No.86 of 2009 With Original Application No.82 of 2008 This the 12th day of January, 2011 HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE V. K. BALI, CHAIRMAN HONBLE SHRI L. K. JOSHI, VICE-CHAIRMAN (A) HONBLE SMT. MEERA CHHIBBER, MEMBER (J) T.A. No.86/2009 1. R. K. Mittal, J.E., K-239, Narina Vihar, New Delhi-110018. 2. V. K. ahuja, J.E., 378/12, New Railway Road, Gurgaon-122001. Applicants Versus 1. Delhi Development Authority through Commissioner (Personnel), DDA, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi. 2. Ajit Singh Grover 3. Pratap Chand Gandhi 4. Vijay Kumar Kashyap (SC) 5. Satish Chander 6. Narender Kumar Saxena 7. Kailash Chand Gulati 8. Rajender Prakash Bharral 9. Virender Singh Verma 10. M. S. Dhaliwal 11. Anang Pal Singh 12. Abdul Fajal Zaidi 13. Sarwan Kumar 14. Krishan Gopal Kaushal 15. Nanak Chand Bhardwaj 16. Hitesh Kumar Sharma 17. Jagvir Singh (SC) 18. Syed Arif Ali 19. Ajit Singh 20. Virender Kumar Ahuja (Respondents 2-2o are through
Commissioner (Prsonnel), Delhi Development Authority, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi). Respondents C.M. No.16292/2007 (for impleadment)
1. Rajesh Mishra S/O N. P. Mishra, R/o 1844, Block AK-4, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad.
2. R. S. Sheoran S/o Risal Singh, R/o Flat No.6, Officers Colony, Sector 15-A, Faridabad.
3. Rakesh Mehta S/o K. P. Mehta, R/o 773, Sector 37, Faridabad.
4. Sahdeo Kumar S/o L. P. Singh, 1-3/31, Sector 16, Rohini, Delhi.
5. Jitender Mittal S/o Sripal Jain, 115 (F.F.), Sabita Vihar, New Delhi-92.
6. C. D. Kaushal S/o Ram Sarup, R/o F-196 C, G.T.B. Enclave, New Delhi-110093.
7. Rajender Kumar Garg S/o Harbans Lal, R/o 42 (FF) Sabita Vihar, New Delhi.
8. Krishan Kumar S/o Chander Bhan, R/o 215, Himgiri Aptts., J Block, Vikaspuri, New Delhi.
9. Ram Bahadur S/o Janki, R/o 103 Nilgiri Aptts, Sector 9, Rohini, New Delhi. Applicants O.A. No.82/2008 1. Amarjeet Singh S/o HJagat Singh, R/o 9-A, Adarsh Kunj Society, Plot No.42, Sector 13, Rohini, Delhi-110085. 2. Subhash Chander S/o Kishori Lal, R/o E-2/191, DDA LIG Flats, Sector 11, Rohini, Delhi-110085. 3. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal S/o Charan Das, R/o BB-39 F, Janakpuri, New Delhi. 4. Krishan Lal s/o Chunni Lal Khurana, R/o 27 Savera Apartments, Sector 13, Rohini, Delhi-110085. 5. Praveen Kumar Sharma S/o B. S. Sharma, R/o SD-346, Shastri Nagar, Ghaziabad (U.P.)-201002. Applicants Versus 1. Delhi Development Authority through its Vice Chairman, INA , Vikas Sadan, New Delhi-110023. 2. Chief Legal Advisor, Delhi Development Authority, INA, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi-110023. Respondents Shri K. K. Rai, Senior Advocate and with him Shri Rajat Rathee, Advocate for applicants in TA-86/2009. Shri Rahul Sharma, Advocate, for applicants in OA-82/2008. Shri Arun Birbal, Advocate for Delhi Development Authority in both cases. Shri A. K. Behera, Advocate, for respondents 2 to 5 in TA-86/2009. O R D E R Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman:
This case has a chequered history. Parties to this litigation are Junior Engineers who came to be employed with the respondent Delhi Development Authority (DDA) with diploma in engineering who later during their service with DDA, obtained degree in engineering, on one side, and those who came with degree in engineering in engineering to begin with. In the matter of precedence in seniority, they have locked horns for more than two decades by now. In view of the extant rules, those who may have experience of two years and are diploma holders, are eligible to be considered for their appointment as Junior Engineers, whereas those who may have acquired the qualification of degree in engineering, are eligible for appointment on the post of Junior Engineer without having any experience to their credit. For the next higher promotional post of Assistant Engineer, there is a fixed quota. Fifty per cent of the posts of Assistant Engineers are meant for quota of direct recruits, whereas as regards the remaining 50% quota, 25% posts are to be filled by those who come on the post of Junior Engineer with degree qualification. They are eligible for consideration of their promotion after having gained experience of three years on the post of Junior Engineer. Remaining 25% quota is for those who come with the qualification of diploma in engineering, but their eligibility for consideration for promotional post is experience on the post of Junior Engineer for a period of eight years. In this marathon litigation the crucial issue has been as to whether the Junior Engineers who initially came with the qualification of diploma in engineering but during service acquired the qualification of degree in engineering would count their service as Junior Engineer for becoming eligible to the next higher promotional post of Assistant Engineer from the date they came into service, and if they had the eligibility for promotion as was required for degree holders by the time they obtained the said degree, they should be eligible and be immediately promoted, or if they considered themselves in the quota of degree holders, they should await the period required to become eligible, as required in the said quota. Surely, whereas those who initially came with the qualification of diploma in engineering and got hybrid by obtaining degree in engineering, would canvass for their promotion immediately on acquisition of qualification of degree in engineering, those who initially came on the post of Junior Engineer with degree in engineering, would want them to stand in queue with them and in their quota from the date they possessed the qualification of degree.
2. There have already been two phases of litigation on the issue as mentioned above, as has been noted by the Honble Supreme Court in Shailendra Dania & Others v S. P. Dubey & Others [(2007) 5 SCC 535]. Whereas, the first phase ended in the High Court, the second phase culminated into the order passed by the Honble Supreme Court in Shailendra Daina (supra). The third phase, which starts now, we only hope and wish may not last that long, as surely, if that may happen, the whole service career of the rival parties would go in litigation. When these two matters came up for hearing before a Division Bench, while recording order dated 9.9.2009, the same were referred to a larger Bench. The primary reason for referring the matter to the larger Bench was that after decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Shailendra Dania (supra), whereas one aspect of the case attained finality, the other was still on hot pot. Whereas, for the unsettled part of the controversy, there were two contradictory judgments, one recorded by the High Court of Delhi and the other by a coordinate Bench the High Court of Madras, there was a dilemma with the Tribunal as to what should be done in these circumstances. The matter, with a view to follow the procedure in the circumstances as mentioned above, vide order dated 9.9.2009 was referred to a larger Bench.
3. When the matter came up before the Full Bench, it became difficult to resolve the controversy as pointed out in the order of reference. We were unable to think of any solution to the problem, nor was one even suggested by the learned counsel representing the parties. However, inasmuch as, whether at the time when the matter was referred to the Full Bench or when order dated 24.9.2009 came to be recorded by the Full Bench, an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Madras was pending in the Supreme Court, wherein leave to appeal was granted, we chose to adjourn the matter sine die awaiting decision of the Supreme Court in the appeal that stood filed and admitted against the Division Bench judgment of the Madras High Court. While however, adjourning the matter sine die, we noted vide a detailed order all the essential parts of the case. It may not be necessary to deal with the same yet again. We could have made the order being recorded now in continuation of the order dated 24.9.2009, but inasmuch as, we are now passing the final order, we will choose to reproduce the relevant part of the said order, thus:
The Division Bench while hearing the matter had noticed that there appeared to be conflicting views as between the Delhi High Court and the Madras High Court, as could be gathered from the decision of the Delhi High Court in Vasdev Chhugani Vs. A.K. Kashyap & Ors. rendered in LPA 473/2002 and N. Sureshnathan & Ors. Vs. Govt. of Pondicherry & Ors., passed on 27.01.2009. While shaping the reliefs, the judgments could not have been overlooked and one of them at least required to be relied on. The reference was made in the above context.
4. Of course, the Full Bench decision (A.K. Dawar), which relied on Indian Petro Chemicals Corporation Vs. Shramik Sena (2001 (7) SCC 469), substantially answers the issue nevertheless we find there are twilight areas which are also to be gone into in depth. Mr. G.D. Gupta and Mr. Ramji Srinivasan appearing for the rival parties and Mr. Birbal appearing on behalf of the DDA had addressed us on the merits of the case and here also the main contest was on the course to be adopted by the Tribunal, whether to rest the judgment on the decision of the Madras High Court or on the law that had been laid down by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court. If we accept one of the decisions, the resultant situation would be that the law laid down by the other High Court requires to be overlooked. In service matters, this is likely to lead to disastrous situation. In the background, we may briefly advert to the facts as might be necessary.
5. OA 82/2008 is filed by a few officers who are working in the DDA as Junior Engineers. They had entered service during the period 1983-85. At the time of selection, they were in possession of the minimum qualifications prescribed, namely, Diploma in Engineering and two years experience. In the course of their service, they had acquired qualification of Degree in Engineering. The post of Junior Engineer was to be filled up by direct recruitment alone. Although the minimum qualification was diploma, persons, who possessed the higher qualification of Degree in Engineering, also could have responded. Such persons, as gatherable from the rules, were not required to possess any previous experience.
6. The next higher post available for promotion to the group is that of Assistant Engineer. 50% of the vacancies were to be filled up by Graduates in Engineering by methods of direct recruitment/deputation. The remaining 50% were to be filled up on promotional basis from the Junior Engineers. Of the above, 50% of the posts were to be filled up by promotion of diploma holders with eight years qualifying service. The balance 50% were to be filled up by Graduate Junior Engineers, who had completed three years of qualifying service. The genesis of the dispute arose out of the circumstance that some of the persons, who had commenced service as Junior Engineers as Diploma holders in Engineering, had later on acquired Degree in Engineering. They had chosen to put up a claim that straightway they became entitled for promotion, since they already were having three years service in the DDA to their credit and had also seniority, as they had entered service on an earlier date. Recognition of such a claim would have directly upset the aspirations of Graduate Engineers, who already might have acquired the three years experience and were waiting for promotion as qualified. Legal proceedings started almost at this context.
7. It may be strange to note that such a claim had, in fact, come up because of a recommendation suggested by the DPC in early 1970. By an executive order during 1971, the service rules were sought to be modified, providing for accommodating diploma holders, who had acquired Graduation, in the graduate quota for promotion. A footnote had been added, to read that a person, who acquired Degree, will also be entitled to get promotion in the graduate channel. A weightage for past service viz of three-eighth period or a maximum of one year service as Graduate Engineer would have been admissible if he possessed two years of regular service as Graduate Engineer after obtaining the Degree. This had been subject matter of challenge, but later on a more beneficial order in favour of the group had come to be passed on 20.09.1990 whereby, it had been stipulated that as soon as a diploma engineer came to possess degree his whole service would be taken notice of, as qualifying service for purpose of promotion. Of course, this order expressly provided that initial seniority would not be taken notice of. The order of 20.09.1990 as above had been issued, clarifying the situation that the Recruitment Rules recognized only a Degree or diploma for purpose of promotion and it did not stipulate any minimum experience after acquisition of the Degree. This too had been challenged. The challenge was initially repelled. But, however, in LPA 43 of 1991, the offending orders and the consequential promotions conferred had been set aside.
8. We may notice that as of now the stand of DDA is that the orders issued by them on such lines were erroneous, and they do not at all support such a view which had been taken earlier. The diploma holders who acquire degree, will have to be assigned a position, below that of a degree holder, as on the relevant date.
9. It may, however, not be necessary to dwell upon in these areas, since the dispute and issues (about the issue of eligibility) stands settled now by the decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 2219-2222 of 2002 on 17.04.2007, the Court holding that a diploma holder, who acquires Graduation while in service necessarily will have to have three years of experience as Graduate Engineer before he gets eligibility for promotion as an Assistant Engineer.
10. The Supreme Court had occasion to pronounce on this issue while considering an appeal filed from the decision of a Full Bench of the Delhi High Court dated 25.01.2002, in S.P. Dubey Vs. MCD & Ors. (CWP 4696/1993). Full Bench was considering the contentions raised in a batch of writ petitions, including CWP 2819/93. The Full Bench had held that the experience gained by Junior Engineer while he was a diploma holder could have been sufficient enough for him to be considered as eligible for promotion, the moment he had acquired graduation. The aggrieved persons had taken up the matter to Supreme Court and Judgment dated 17.04.2007 referred to earlier had come to be passed in the above context reversing the judgment of the Full Bench and declaring the law that service for the purpose of promotion should be service rendered after acquisition of graduation. As noticed by the Supreme Court, at least there was no dearth of legal proceedings at any point of time during the last three decades, on this issue.
11. It appears that although the Apex Court had thought it fit to give a quietus to the issue, disputes have reemerged with greater energy. While disposing of the Civil Appeal, in Paragraph 23 of the judgment, the Supreme Court had held that other questions are left open, one of them being whether the initial credit of seniority of the diploma holders requires to be noticed as an advantage for promotion after acquisition of degree. The Apex Court had refrained from expressing any opinion on those points. After answering the question, the matters had been remanded. TA 86/2009, now under our consideration, was one among the group of cases where the graduate engineers had prayed for a declaration that they were entitled to promotion from the date they acquired eligibility of three years service, and were not obliged to surrender their rights to the group, who had come to possess degree during the course of their service (CWP 2819/1993). It had been remanded back by the Supreme Court, and later on has been transferred to this Tribunal, to be adjudicated afresh on merits.
12. In the meanwhile, OA 82/2008 had come to be filed. The question highlighted is as to whether a diploma holder who had entered service earlier than a graduate, would be entitled to the benefit of total seniority, in terms of the seniority list in force, and whether he will get precedence in the matters of promotion as a graduate who had credit of three years service after obtaining the higher qualification.
13. After the judgment of the Supreme Court, the DDA had been proceeding on the basis that the diploma engineers after acquisition of graduation could not have put up a claim on the basis of a total seniority. Promotional orders were being issued to graduate engineers who had acquired eligibility before them. OA No. 82 of 2008 had come to be filed in the aforesaid circumstance, the applicants seeking a relief that DPC was to proceed strictly as per the finalized seniority list of 1996 and 1998 and the respondent DDA was not to act upon legal advice to the contrary that had been received by them. According to them, the issue had been left open by the Supreme Court and the DDA was to proceed in the matter, taking notice of the exposition of law as had been made in R.B. Desai & Ors. Vs. S.K. Khandolkar (1999 (7) SCC 74). According to Mr. Gupta, the claim could not have been disputed, since the Supreme Court there, had in unambiguous terms held that although eligibility might be a relevant object, when both the competing persons had eligibility at the time of consideration, seniority was to govern the situation. Senior counsel, on instructions, submitted that the group represented by him had to be considered as graduates alone, and were eligible to be accepted as in the graduate stream, and the overall seniority in the cadre could not have been overlooked. Counsel asserted that Supreme Court unambiguously had held that unless the rules specifically provided for conferment of advantage to a candidate with earlier eligibility, the date of seniority should alone have relevance. This is the situation at hand.
14. Counsel had also invited our attention to the decision of the Madras High Court in N. Sureshnathan Vs. Governor of Pondicherry & Ors, decided on 27.01.2009, where the decision of the Administrative Tribunal had been confirmed, and the counsel had opined that the service experience as an eligibility criterion cannot be read to be any other thing because this quota is specifically made to the degree holder junior engineers. The Court had noted that an earlier Division Bench had taken such a view (WP 11236/2000), and although the matter has been carried to Supreme Court, the interim orders presently in force specifically made it clear that the judgment as such was not being stayed; only there was protection given from possible reversions following the judgment.
15. It is evident that OA 150/2006 had been filled before the Madras Bench by persons who had secured graduation in the course of their services, and they had contended that a review DPC requires to be held; their total seniority is to be taken note of and promotions given. The Bench had thereupon held that in view of the judgment in CWP 11236/2000, respondents had no option, or wait for the judgment of the Supreme Court, and they were obliged to draw up a seniority list as directed, and proceed with the exercise of promotion. It was the above decision that was challenged in the High Court. Judgment dated 27.01.2009 (N. Sureshnathan Vs. Governor of Pondicherry & Ors.), affirmed the view taken by the Tribunal, also noticing the Bench decision on the issue.
16. It was argued that since the Supreme Court judgment in Shailendra Danias case (2007 (5) SCC 535) had been specifically noticed by the later Madras decision, it binds these proceedings, and the legal position would be that a diploma holder, would be entitled to carry his seniority position to his advantage when promotions were being made, in the graduate quota as he had acquired graduation and had rendered three years service thereafter. Mr. Gupta, therefore, submits that the existing seniority list required to be taken notice of. He points out that it was taking notice of these aspects that an interim order had been passed by Division Bench in MA 785/2009 and it should be, therefore, restored and continued. Judicial propriety required the Tribunal to adopt this course.
17. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposing parties submit that because of the judgment of the Delhi High Court in LPA 473/2002 (Vasudev Chhugani), it would not have been possible for the rival group to urge any such contentions at all. Nor was the Tribunal to accede to the suggestions that had been raised by the diploma holder engineers. The decisions of the Madras High Court have not attained finality and they are pending in the Supreme Court since leave has been granted already. Additionally, in Vasudev Chhugani, the self same issue had been raised and stands answered. In all probability, this had not been brought to the attention of the Madras High Court. There was specific argument on the basis of the seniority list of 1996 and 1997, as has been agitated in the present application. Taking notice of the totality of the circumstances, it had been held that the persons who are diploma holders but who had acquired degree subsequently could not have claimed seniority over a degree holder who became eligible for promotion in the channel of degree holders years earlier. Further specifically, it had been observed that the erstwhile inter se seniority, if any, between the appellant and the respondents had lost its significance. Learned counsel submits that when the High Court, in a judgment to which the DDA was a party had held without any reservations that the seniority list is irrelevant for resting claims of personnel in the services of the organization, such a list could not have been infused with life by any process of interpretation. The list was to be considered as no more in existence. The decision required full compliance. Steps for drawing up a new list were in progress.
18. As about the seniority lists, on which reliance was placed, counsel pointed out that they came to be prepared consequent to certain directions passed in earlier legal proceedings, which by now had become irrelevant by the fresh exposition of law. A new list was in the process of preparation and the efforts of the contesting parties could be visualized as for stalling such essential exercises.
19. Learned counsel representing the graduate engineers had also invited our attention to R.B. Desais case. The said decision had partly rested on principles of long term practices being followed by the Government. But that was not the case of DDA. In fact, a group, who are ineligible for promotion, for the first time, got an advantageous order, only in 1971, that some weightage was to be given to them. It was straightaway under challenge. Although in the year 1990 office proceedings were issued giving them total benefits, these proceedings have been set aside. The seniority list has been prepared at those turbulent times. There was, therefore, no consistent practice of giving promotions to diploma holders who acquired degree overlooking the claims of degree holders, who had earlier become eligible for promotion on completion of three years service. The theory of long past practices is, in fact, a hoax.
20. This appears to be the factual scenario. We find that there is conflict while working out a process of promotion, when the decisions of the Delhi High Court and the Madras High Court are simultaneously available. Since the specific issue is now pending before the Honble Supreme Court, it may not be prudent for us to add on further confusion to the existing melee. Learned counsel for the DDA submits that they are obliged to follow the directions as have been incorporated in Vasudev Chhugani and a deviation would be at the risk of contempt. It is also pointed out that in TA 108 of 2007 and connected cases, in respect of architectural wing of the DDA, more or less the same issue had arisen and a Bench had on 17.02.2009 held that the reckonable date would be the date of eligibility thus, overruling the contentions raised by the applicants that on acquisition of degree for purpose of promotion the entire service requires to be taken notice of.
21. We feel that so long as the issue is not decided by the Supreme Court one way or the other, it may not be expedient to choose as between the two judgments of the two High Courts. We adopt the stand that no positive orders are to be put in operation to restrain the DDA while dealing with the matter as per advice received by them. Further, it is perceived that a few more cases remanded by the Supreme Court, on the subject, are yet to be notified for hearing.
22. We, therefore, adjourn the matters sine die. The matters are to be listed again, on application made by either of the parties. We dismiss MA 1752/2009 as we do not think it will be in public interest to pass interlocutory orders restraining the freehand of the DDA in matters of promotion. Promotions already made and promotions likely to be made hereafter to the cadre of Assistant Engineers, however, will be subject to further orders that may be passed in the proceedings.
4. When the Honble Supreme Court decided the appeal against the judgment of the Madras High Court, on application, these matters have been revived. The Supreme Court has allowed the appeal preferred against the judgment of the Madras High Court by setting aside its judgment. Even though, therefore, as it may appear to us that there is hardly any scope for further discussion in the matter, but as usual, arguments in a service dispute, and that too, pertaining to inter se seniority, would never die. The learned counsel representing the parties, and in particular, representing those who had come into service initially on the strength of their qualification of diploma, would still contend that they would be senior to degree holders on acquisition of their hybrid qualification of degree in engineering, and that their initial service on the posts of Junior Engineers cannot be as if of no use and consequence. The counsel representing the degree holders would, however, relying on the judgment recorded by the Honble Supreme Court in Shailendra Dania (supra) and in N. Suresh Nathan & others v Union of India & others [(2010) 5 SCC 692], whereby the judgment of the Madras High Court has been set aside, as also the judgment dated 14.2.2007 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in LPA No.473/2002 in the matter of Vasdev Chhugani v A. K. Kashyap & others, clamour to be senior over and above those who had come into service initially by virtue of their qualification of possessing diploma in engineering.
5. Before we may advert to the rival contentions of the learned counsel representing the parties, we may mention that Shri A. K. Behera, learned counsel representing the group of officers with hybrid qualification, who are respondents in WP(C) No.2819/1993, re-numbered as TA No.86/2009, which was filed by those Junior Engineers with the qualification of degree in engineering, and the applicants in OA No.82/2008 that came to be filed after the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Shailendra Dania (supra), would want the TA to be dismissed on the ground that the writ petitioners/applicants in TA Shri R. K. Mittal and Shri V. K. Ahuja, who alone had filed the writ petition originally, have since already resigned. Whereas, Shri R. K. Mittal resigned in 2003 or 2004, Shri V. K. Ahuja resigned in 2008. Civil Misc. No.16292/2007 on behalf of eight employees supporting the cause of the original writ petitioners/applicants in the TA for their impleadment was filed in October, 2007 when the matter was before the Honble High Court, wherein neither any notice was issued nor any order was passed impleading them as party applicants. It is contended that insofar as, the original writ petitioners/applicants are concerned, they have no surviving cause of action and the others who made the civil misc. aforesaid have not been impleaded as party applicants, which would virtually mean that there is no petitioner/applicant and, therefore, on this ground, TA No.86/2009 needs to be closed. We do not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel as noted above. The original writ petitioners/applicants, as regards seniority, would have a surviving cause, as surely if they were to be promoted as per the stand taken by them, they would be entitled to consequential reliefs as may naturally flow from according them higher seniority over and above diploma holders, who acquired the qualification of degree later. When exercise to recast seniority in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shailendra Dania (supra) was underway, OA No.82/2008 came to be filed. Based upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case aforesaid, the respondent DDA has already prepared the seniority list and made some promotions as well. That apart, it appears from the order dated 24.1.2008 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court, whether notices on the civil misc. aforesaid were given or not, the parties were conscious of such an application, and the Bench seized of the matter had invited arguments as well to be addressed in support of the said application. When the connected writ petitions came up for hearing on 24.1.2008, the Bench recorded the following order:
Counsel appearing for the DDA states that she is not prepared to argue on the impleadment application as she does not have a copy of the said application. She may be furnished a copy of the said application by the applicants during the course of the day. She may contest the application for which she is given two weeks time, but making it clear that on the next date we will take up the pending applications as also the appeal. DDA is also directed to place before us a synopsis of the case along with the seniority list which is stated to have been prepared in terms of the order of the Supreme Court with advance copy to the counsel appearing for the petitioner.
Renotify on 27th March, 2008. In view of provisions contained in Order-I Rule 10(2) of Code of Civil Procedure, the court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle the questions involved in the suit, be added. The court has thus suo moto power to implead parties, be it as plaintiff or defendant, to adjudicate upon and settle the questions involved in the case. The Tribunal, we are conscious, is not bound by the strict provisions of CPC. It is to be guided by the principles of natural justice, but the provision contained in Order-I Rule 10(2), in our view, is with a view to advance the cause of justice and can well be said to be a principle of natural justice. We exercise such power and order impleadment of the applicants in civil misc. No.16292/2007 as party applicants. We may mention that but for raising a technical objection nothing on merits could be urged as regards impleadment of the applicants as party applicants in the civil misc. It was not even urged that they would not be necessary or proper parties. It was also not urged that by adding their names in the array of applicants, some additional grounds will become available to the respondents. Still further, once the controversy has to be adjudicated in the OA filed by hybrid Junior Engineers, it would not be equitous to dismiss this TA on the ground as urged by Shri Behera.
6. We have already mentioned that one phase of the litigation, which is as regards the hybrid Junior Engineers occupying or coming against the quota for promotion with those who initially came with the degree qualification, has attained finality in the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Shailendra Dania (supra). Even though, the rival parties before the Supreme Court were employees of the Slum Wing, which was erstwhile part of MCD and was transferred from MCD to DDA in 1974, the rules for promotion on the post of Assistant Engineer were the same. The Supreme Court while considering the rival contentions of counsel for parties held as follows:
As a necessary corollary, we are of the view that the diploma-holder Junior Engineers who have obtained a Degree in Engineering during the tenure of service, would be required to complete three years service on the post after having obtained a degree to become eligible for promotion to the higher post if they claim the promotion in the channel of degree-holder Junior Engineer, there being a quota fixed for graduate Junior Engineers and diploma-holder Junior Engineers for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers. The quotas in the two streams were held to be in watertight compartment for graduate Junior Engineers and diploma holder Junior Engineers, and neither could claim promotion in the quota meant for the other stream. If the employees with hybrid qualification thus want to be considered in their quota of diploma holders, they may do so if it might suit them, but if they might like to come and rub shoulders with graduate engineers, they will have to count their eligibility from the date they acquired the degree qualification. Their earlier service would not make them eligible for promotion immediately on acquiring the qualification of degree, if by that date they had already put in three years of service. This chapter stands closed by the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court and there is absolutely no scope for any further discussion, nor has one even done by the counsel representing the parties.
7. The surviving dispute is only as regards the fixation of seniority. This is the issue on which there were divergent opinions one by a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi and the other by a coordinate Bench of the Madras High Court. The facts of the case culminating into decision by a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in LPA No.473/2002 in the matter of Vasdev Chhugani (supra) reveal that A. K. Kashyap and others who were degree holders had filed a writ petition in the High Court, which was allowed. It is against the orders of the learned single Judge that the LPA came to be filed by Vasdev Chhugani, who was a hybrid Junior Engineer. He was appointed as Junior Engineer (Civil) by DDA. He was a diploma holder in civil engineering and had two years experience. During the course of service, he passed degree in civil engineering on 3.3.1980 and completed eight years of service as Junior Engineer on 15.3.1980. He was promoted as Assistant Engineer on the basis of diploma and eight years experience w.e.f. 20.1.1981, though he had become eligible on 15.3.1980. His case was that since he had graduated in civil engineering on 3.3.1980 and had completed eight years as Junior Engineer on 15.3.1980, he should have been promoted as Assistant Engineer at least w.e.f. 15.3.1980. One Shri J. S. Yadav, who was junior to the appellant was promoted by DPC as Assistant Engineer w.e.f. 29.10.1980. The appellant made representation to DDA submitting that some of the Assistant Engineers who had joined as diploma holders and had graduated during their service had been given seniority with effect from the date of their joining and some of them had even been promoted as Executive Engineers. The DPC considered his representation and found him eligible for promotion as Assistant Engineer w.e.f. 15.3.1980 onwards as a degree holder, and vide order dated 24.10.1997 his seniority was restored above Shri J. S. Yadav and he was accordingly promoted as Assistant Engineer with effect from the same date as Shri Yadav, i.e., 29.10.1980. Shri A. K. Kashyap who had joined as a degree holder, however, was promoted as Assistant Engineer on 31.12.1980. Aggrieved Shri Kashyap challenged the order dated 24.10.1997 by filing a writ petition alleging that he was superseded without notice. His petition was allowed qua the appellant Vasdev Chhugani. Hence the LPA. As regards the main controversy, the learned single Judge held that once, the appellant (respondent No.3 in the writ petition) had acquired degree and sought to come in the channel of degree holders, he could not claim seniority over persons who were either senior to him in the line of degree holders or who may have been junior to him in the line of diploma holders, but who had acquired degree prior to him, like Shri J. S. Yadav, and that the appellant could not have been placed over Shri A. K. Kashyap since he would get seniority from the date he became eligible as a degree holder. It was further held that in view of the fact that the appellant had became eligible only on 15.3.1980, while Shri Kashyap had become eligible on 11.6.1979, the appellant could not have been placed over him. While confirming the decision of the learned single Judge, the Division Bench observed as follows:
10. Thus, in our view, the learned Single Judge was justified in coming to the conclusion that having qualified as a Degree holder on 15.3.1980, appellant could not have claimed seniority over respondent No.1 who as a Degree holder was eligible for promotion on 11.6.1979 in the channel of Degree holders. In this context the erstwhile inter-se seniority, if any between the appellant and the respondent No.1 loses significance
8. A Division Bench of the High Court of Madras on pari materia rules, however, as mentioned above, took a decision which is in tune with the contention raised by the counsel representing the hybrid Junior Engineers. The facts of the case aforesaid reveal that the Government of Pondicherry, framed the Assistant Engineers (including Deputy Director of Public Works Department) Group B (Technical) Recruitment Rules, 1965, vide notification dated 31.1.1966. The said rules were amended by notification dated 8.8.1986, as per which the post of Assistant Engineer in the Public Works Department, was a selection post and appointment to the 20% of the posts of Assistant Engineer was to be by direct recruitment, and to the 80% of the posts by promotion. 50% of the promotion quota was to be filled by Section Officers (Junior Engineers) possessing a recognised degree in civil engineering or equivalent with three years service in the grade, failing which Section Officers holding diploma in civil engineering with six years service in the grade, and remaining 50% of the promotion quota was to be filled up by Section Officers (Junior Engineers) possessing a recognised diploma in civil engineering with six years service in the grade. It would be unnecessarily burdening the judgment to trace the earlier litigation between the parties. Suffice it may, however, to mention that in the earlier bout of litigation, the Tribunal held vide order dated 9.1.1990 in OA No.553/1989 that when the recruitment rules required three years service in the grade, the Section Officers (Junior Engineers) who ceased to be mere diploma holders having acquired the degree qualification, had to be regarded as having total experience put in the grade of Section Officers and after acquiring the degree qualification, and there was nothing in the recruitment rules to warrant exclusion of a part of the experience acquired by such Junior Engineers while functioning in the grade of Section Officers. The Tribunal directed that the cases of the applicants in the OA be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers on par with other degree holder Junior Engineers taking due note of their total length of service rendered in the grade of Junior Engineer and such a consideration should be alongside other Junior Engineers, who might have acquired the necessary degree qualification earlier than the applicants while holding the post of Junior Engineers. This judgment of the Tribunal was challenged before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No4542/1991, reported as N. Suresh Nathan v Union of India [1992 Supp (1) SCC 584], which, while interpreting rule 11 of the Rules, held that the period of three years service in the grade required for degree holders as qualification for promotion in the category of degree holders must mean three years service in the grade as a degree holder and, therefore, that period of three years would commence only from the date of obtaining the degree and not earlier, and this interpretation of rule 11 was in conformity with the past practice followed consistently by the Government, and that the Tribunal was not justified in taking the contrary view, allowed the appeal. After decision of the Supreme Court, when those who came into service with degree in engineering were promoted, the Assistant Engineers with hybrid qualification challenged their promotion before the Tribunal in OA No.359/1997 contending that the Supreme Court in N. Suresh Nathans case had only held that three years service required for eligibility for the promotion quota reserved for the category of degree holders or equivalent should be considered from the date of acquiring the degree or equivalent, but had not decided the question of seniority as between degree holders or equivalent and diploma holders in the grade. This is the precise plea raised by the Junior Engineers with hybrid qualification in OA No.82/2008. The Supreme Court also in Shailendra Danias case had kept the question of seniority open. The matter was contested and the Government of Pondicherry in its reply filed in OA No.359/1997 before the Tribunal mentioned that the DPC met on 29.9.1996 and keeping in view the directions of the Supreme Court in N. Suresh Nathans case it selected the Section Officers/Junior Engineers to the post of Assistant Engineers by preparing two lists. It clarified in the reply that in the first list those who had joined as Section Officers/Junior Engineers with degree in civil engineering were placed above the Section Officers/Junior Engineers who had joined service with diploma in civil engineering but had subsequently acquired degree in civil engineering, and in the second list, Section Officers/Junior Engineers who had joined with diploma were placed in order of seniority counted from the date of joining in the grade. The Tribunal dismissed the said OA after holding that the Supreme Court had already taken a specific view in N. Suresh Nathans case construing the recruitment rules and that the applicants should not be allowed to raise the point once again, and the judgment of the Supreme Court was binding on the Tribunal. Aggrieved, those with hybrid qualification filed a writ petition before the Madras High Court, which held inter alia that in N. Suresh Nathans case the Supreme Court had only decided the question of eligibility for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer meant for the category of degree holders or equivalent, but did not decide the question of seniority of Section Officers/Junior Engineers who had acquired degree in civil engineering or equivalent after joining as Section Officers/Junior Engineers and, therefore, the judgment of the Supreme Court would not operate as res judicata. The Madras High Court further held that the entire service of a person concerned even before acquiring the degree in civil engineering or equivalent had to be counted for the purpose of seniority and promotion, and directed that a review DPC be held to consider the question of promotion of the petitioners before it vis-`-vis respondents 2 to 8 and other eligible persons, who had become eligible by the date of sitting of the DPC in 1996, and accordingly allowed the writ petition. Thus, an appeal before the Supreme Court by those who had initially came into service with degree in civil engineering. While setting aside the judgment of the Madras High Court, the Honble Supreme Court held as follows:
49. In our considered opinion, therefore, the practice adopted by the Government of Pondicherry on the advice of UPSC of counting the service of the eligible candidates from the date of acquisition of the degree in Civil Engineering by them and the impugned judgment and order of the High Court directing that the entire service of eligible candidates, both prior and after acquisition of the degree of Civil Engineering by them, would be counted for the purpose of promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer under Clause 1 of Rule 11 of the Recruitment Rules are contrary to the Rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution and the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution.
9. We are of the considered view that after decision of the Supreme Court in N. Suresh Nathans case, nothing survives further for our consideration. It is absolutely clear from the judgment in Shailendra Danias case that diploma holder Junior Engineers who had obtained degree in engineering during the tenure of their service would be required to complete three years service on the post after having obtained the degree qualification to become eligible for promotion on the higher post if they claim promotion in the channel of degree holders, their being a quota fixed for graduate Junior Engineers and diploma holder Junior Engineers for promotion on the post of Assistant Engineer. This is what precisely has been said by the Supreme Court in Shailendra Danias case. Insofar as the question of seniority which was left open is concerned, the same now stands clinched in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in N. Suresh Nathans case. There is no argument on behalf of diploma holders with hybrid qualification that the rules as were subject matter of interpretation by the Supreme Court in N. Suresh Nathans case, were in any way different from the rules applicable to the litigating parties before us. In fact, when Shailendra Danias case came to be decided, the Supreme Court for its decision inter alia placed reliance upon the judgment in N. Suresh Nathans case in the first bout of litigation. When the Tribunal had decided N. Suresh Nathans case in the first round of litigation, appeal against the orders passed by the Tribunal was competent only before the Supreme Court. Now that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v Union of India [(1997) 3 SCC 261] writ is competent before Division Bench of the High Court, the order recorded by the Tribunal this time was challenged before the High Court of Madras which upset the judgment of the Tribunal, and which judgment of the High Court has been set aside by the Supreme Court.
10. In view of the discussion made above, we hold that insofar as the seniority on the post of Junior Engineer is concerned, there is no dispute that one who came to be appointed earlier in point of time would be senior irrespective of the qualification that he held when he was appointed. Junior Engineers with their respective qualifications for the purpose of promotional post of Assistant Engineer have to be in their watertight compartments as per quota of promotion fixed for them. If, however, a Junior Engineer with diploma in engineering may, during the currency of his service, improves upon his qualification by obtaining degree in engineering and may thus wish to count his seniority with Junior Engineers who initially came into service with degree in engineering, his seniority vis-`-vis degree holders would count from the date he may have acquired the qualification of degree in engineering. If in a given case, it may suit a hybrid diploma holder to be promoted in the quota of diploma holders only, he can do so, but in case after obtaining degree in engineering, he may like to be promoted in the quota meant for degree holders, he would be junior to the degree holders if he has obtained degree in engineering after the Junior Engineer who has come into service initially with degree in engineering. The eligibility of a hybrid Junior Engineer for his promotion on the post of Assistant Engineer, if he may like to be promoted in the quota meant for degree holders, would start from the date when he may improve upon his qualification. We may illustrate A Junior Engineer with qualification of diploma in engineering is appointed in 1990; he improves upon his qualification by obtaining degree in engineering in 1995. If he may choose to be promoted in the quota meant for degree holders, he will be junior to a degree holder who may have been appointed before 1995.
11. There will be no need to remit this matter to the Division Bench as the only question involved in this case is inter se seniority between those who came into service with diploma in engineering and have improved upon their qualification by obtaining degree in engineering, and those who came into service initially with degree in engineering. No other question is involved in this case, and, therefore, it will be an exercise in futility to remit the matter to the Division Bench.
12. For the reasons as mentioned above, whereas TA No.86/2009 is allowed, OA No.82/2008 is dismissed. The respondent DDA would work out seniority in the manner as indicated above and promotions to the post of Assistant Engineer shall be made accordingly. We find that the opinion dated 9.3.1993 of DOP&T as regards making promotion on the post of Assistant Engineers after decision in Shailendra Danias case is in consonance with the view which we have taken as above. The same, insofar as is relevant, reads as follows:
3. The main question to be answered is whether in view of the separate eligibility and quotas prescribed for the degree and diploma holders for promotion to the grade of Asstt. Engineer, the seniority of a diploma holder should undergo a change vis-`-vis degree holder entrants on his acquiring a degree. The cadre of Junior Engineers whether diploma holders or degree holders is an integrated cadre with common recruitment rules in which a diploma in engineering has been prescribed as minimum qualification. The recruitment is on the basis of a common competitive evaluation. Therefore, the select lists drawn at the time of recruitment will have to govern the seniority of all JEs. Of course, while effecting promotions to the two respective quotas earmarked for diploma holders and degree holders an eligibility list based on the date of completion of qualifying service will have to be prepared. However, if a diploma holder acquired a degree thereby becoming eligible for the quota meant for degree holders, no change in his seniority vis-`-vis existing degree holders would result, although in view of the Court Judgments, he would become eligible for promotion in the degree holders quota only after three years from the date of acquisition of the degree. Promotions which have already been made, as per the opinion mentioned above, would be protected and further promotions, as and when made, shall also be made accordingly.
13. In view of the peculiar facts of the case, costs of the litigation are made easy.
( Meera Chhibber ) ( L. K. Joshi ) ( V. K. Bali ) Member (J) Vice-Chairman (A) Chairman /as/


text:
Get an overview of this hotel4-star Palma de Mallorca hotel in Old Town, near Cathedral of Santa Maria of Palma
Collect 200 Nectar points!
Simply enter your Nectar card number when you check out. Your points will be credited 35 days after you return from your trip.*Offers may apply
Popular property highlights
Located in Old Town, this hotel is within a 15-minute walk of Església de Santa Caterina de Siena and Cathedral of Santa Maria of Palma. Bellver Castle is 2.2 mi (3.6 km) away.
Hotel Features
Along with a restaurant, this smoke-free hotel has a bar/lounge and self parking. WiFi in public areas is free. Additionally, coffee/tea in a common area, a meeting room, and dry cleaning are onsite.
Room Amenities
All 32 soundproofed rooms provide free WiFi, free wired Internet, and minibars. For a bit of entertainment, LCD TVs come with satellite channels, and guests will also find rainfall showerheads and hair dryers.Information missing or incorrect? Tell us!Opens in a new window
UR Mision de San Miguel
Hotel Amenities
Hotel Amenities
The hotel offers a restaurant. A bar/lounge is on site where guests can unwind with a drink. Public areas are equipped with complimentary wired and wireless Internet access. Event facilities measuring 538 square feet (50 square meters) include a meeting room. This business-friendly hotel also offers tour/ticket assistance, multilingual staff, and coffee/tea in a common area. Parking is available onsite for a surcharge.
UR Mision de San Miguel is a smoke-free property.
- Multilingual staff
- Number of floors - 4
- Number of buildings/towers - 2
- Year Built 2006
- Coffee/tea in common areas
- Tours/ticket assistance
- Free WiFi
- Free wired high-speed Internet
- 24-hour front desk
- Dry cleaning/laundry service
- Luggage storage
- One meeting room
- Restaurant
- Laundry facilities
- Total number of rooms - 32
- Self parking (surcharge)
- Conference space size (meters) - 50
- Conference space size (feet) - 538
- Smoke-free property
- Bar/lounge
- Breakfast available (surcharge)
- Television in common areas
Family Friendly Amenities
- Free Wi-Fi
- Soundproofed rooms
- Laundry facilities
Available in all rooms: Free WiFi , Free wired high-speed Internet
Available in some public areas: Free WiFi , Free wired high-speed Internet
Self parking (surcharge)
Room Amenities
- Rainfall showerhead
- Free toiletries
- Soundproofed rooms
- Free wired high-speed Internet
- Air conditioning
- In-room climate control (air conditioning)
- Minibar
- Daily housekeeping
- Private bathroom
- Hair dryer
- Desk
- Blackout drapes/curtains
- Satellite TV service
- Free WiFi
- In-room safe
Where to Eat
Buffet breakfasts are available for a surcharge and are served each morning between 7:30 AM and 10:30 AM.
Onsite venue - This fine-dining restaurant specializes in Mediterranean cuisine and serves breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Guests can order drinks at the bar and enjoy alfresco dining (weather permitting). Open select days.
Nearby Things to Do
The recreational activities listed below are available either on site or nearby; fees may apply.
- Golf lessons available nearby
- Hiking/biking trails nearby
Hotel Policies
Check-in time starts at 3 PM
Check-out time is noon
Payment types
Children and extra beds
- Children are welcome.
- Kids stay free! Up to 3 children 2 years old and younger stay free when using existing bedding.
- Rollaway/extra beds are not available.
- No pets or service animals allowed
You need to know
Extra-person charges may apply and vary depending on property policy.
Government-issued photo identification and a credit card or cash deposit are required at check-in for incidental charges.
Special requests are subject to availability upon check-in and may incur additional charges. Special requests cannot be guaranteed.
No elevators
Parking height restrictions apply
No pets or service animals allowed
No rollaway/extra beds available
Additional policies and fees may apply when booking more than 5 rooms. For more details, please contact the office using the information on the reservation confirmation received after booking.
- A tax is imposed by the city: EUR 1.65 per person, per night. This tax does not apply to children under 16 years of age.
Optional extras
- Fee for buffet breakfast: EUR 14 for adults and EUR 14 for children (approximately)
- Self parking fee: EUR 12 per night
Hotel Name
- UR Mision San Miguel
- UR Mision San Miguel Hotel
- UR Mision San Miguel Hotel Palma de Mallorca
- UR Mision San Miguel Palma de Mallorca
- Ur Mision De San Miguel Hotel Palma De Mallorca
- UR Mision De San Miguel Palma De Mallorca, Majorca
- Ur Mision De San Miguel Hotel Palma Mallorca
- UR Mision De San Miguel Palma Mallorca Majorca
We should mention
Cash transactions at this property cannot exceed EUR 2500, due to national regulations. For further details, please contact the property using information in the booking confirmation. Up to 3 children 2 years old and younger stay free when occupying the parent or guardian's room, using existing bedding. No pets and no service animals are allowed at this property.


text:
Anchor + Brow Lift Q&A
Narrow 2 questions by:
Sort by:
Brow Lift Anchors Did Not Hold - What Treatments Will Remedy the Loose Skin?
Doctor says forehead anchor points after coronal brow lift didn't hold. Now eyes are too close to brow & have a "mean look, w/ eye... READ MORE
I had a brow lift with Mitek anchors 17 years ago & want the anchors removed. Can they be removed?
After my consultation with my plastic surgeon, he contacted Mitek to inquire about getting a tool to use to remove the anchors. I am happy to pay for... READ MORE
No matching results


text:
Go List: New Orleans
7 of 9
Slade Rushing and Allison Vines-Rushing are Southerners who met in New Orleans, made their names in Manhattan, then returned to Louisiana to showcase food that combines a Southern sensibility with New York sophistication. Their first restaurant, Longbranch in Abita Springs, was short-lived, but the modernist dining room at MiLa is going strong. We loved: Barbecue lobster; sweet tea-brined rotisserie duck.
Photo © Thomas Schauer


text:
· Angus council's decision to require the Arbroath-based Angus Black and White Minstrels to stop blacking up for performances and to change their name to the Angus Minstrels has provoked unexpected outrage. "I attended the show on Saturday and it was a completely full house," says SNP MSP Andrew Welsh. "There has never been any intention of racism in any shape or form. It never occurred to anybody in it; they just picked it up from the old BBC series." Mr Welsh is evidently unaware that the BBC axed the series 27 years ago because it was considered racially offensive. Now local councillor Bob Spink has waded in. "It is much ado about nothing. It is a traditional show performed by hundreds of other minstrel groups, and it is in no way intended to offend black people. The minstrels are an important part of Arbroath." Just as sporrans play a vital cultural role in Alabama.
· To the National to see Howard Brenton's controversial new play, Paul ... I can't bear diary items that start that way, and one of the good things about my brief tenure is that they are officially banned.
· The BBC's much-loved Children in Need appeal has suffered an early loss. There has been no official confirmation, but it seems unlikely that viewers will now get the promised chance to have their family photo snapped by Lord Lichfield - one of the original lots in The Great Big Bid auction programme running all week. You can, though, still bid to have Donny Osmond come and sing in your home. Double it and he might go next door.
· Lichfield was given a warm send-off in the Mail on Sunday by "close friend" David Litchfield, who recalled that the bouffant-haired photographer was overly fond of gangsters, struggled with alcoholism, fretted about the size of his penis and insisted on taking dubious "glamour" and "soft porn" pictures; and, towards the end of his life, "his conversation appeared often to be exclusively limited to royal anecdotes". Thank God they didn't ask one of Lichfield's enemies to do the honours.
· Jack Straw and his fellow cabinet pygmies may have chosen the wrong target in attacking Sir Christopher Meyer for publishing his revelatory memoirs. It is his German-born wife, Catherine, who is really responsible for dishing the dirt. According to an interview in the Sunday Telegraph, she told her husband his ambassadorial first draft was "boring" and made him start again. "Write the way a woman would," she instructed him. "Paint a picture." Sorry, Jack, but those who live by the sexed-up dossier die by the sexed-up dossier.
· "While they may well be required to travel large distances as part of their job, there must be more environmentally responsible ways for them to do this than by car." Who on the outrageous £3m that MPs clocked up in mileage allowances last year? Lib Dem transport spokesman Tom Brake, who else?
· Was it not rather optimistic of Davids Cameron and Davis to book Leicester City's Walkers Stadium (capacity 32,500) for their opening hustings? Just thought I'd ask.


text:
By Jackson Holtz Herald Writer
The Northwest Folklife Festival, the annual Memorial Day celebration of art, music, dance, the spoken word and more, takes place this weekend at Seattle Center.
More than 250,000 people are expected at the free festival, which features hundreds of performers including dozens from Snohomish County.
For example, Everett blues singer Stacy Jones and her band are scheduled to play at 6:45 p.m. Sunday at the Fountain Lawn Stage.
Jones is gearing up for the June 1 release of "Live and Untapped," her newest recording.
Mountlake Terrace comedian Kermet Apio sets aside jokes to play the music of his native Hawaii.
"It's a blast," Apio said. "There's such a great vibe."
This is the fourth year that Apio will play at Folklife. His 10-year-old daughter plans to join him on stage to dance along with the music.
Catch his set at 8:30 p.m. Saturday at the Folklife Cafe.
And Camano Island slide guitar player Nick Vigarino has enjoyed playing Folklife since the mid-'80s.
"My attitude is that as long as it stays free. I'll play there," Vigarino said.
He'll be teaching a slide guitar workshop Monday afternoon, and then performing a concert starting at 7:45 p.m. at the Fountain Lawn Stage. He'll start solo, add a drummer and then a bass player to evolve into his trademark slop-jar Delta funk.
"Who knows? There may even be a surprise person there," he said.
There's much more at the festival, now in its 41st years.
On Friday night, three performers push the boundaries of folk music with a program called "In the Loop." Each of the musicians uses computers to lay down tracks and "loop" the music while they play live.
The Bellingham Circus Guild features jugglers, acrobats and a string band Sunday at the Northwest Court Stage.
In a combination of video and music, electronic sounds and video games, "Next 50" will use images and sounds from vintage computers and games. The experiment is scheduled for 1 p.m. Saturday in EMP's Sky Church.
The 41st Northwest Folklife Festival starts at 11 a.m. today and continues with events through Monday at the Seattle Center.
For a complete schedule, go to nwfolklifefestival.org or download the Folklife app to your smartphone.
Jackson Holtz: 425-339-3447; email@example.com.


text:
8959 Red Baron Blvd
Reno, NV 89506
515 S Virginia St # 217
Reno, NV 89501
3785 Vantage Way
Reno, NV 89502
52 WA Pai Shone Cir # B
Reno, NV 89502
Get detailed background information about anyone fast and easy
52 WA Pai Shone Cir
Reno, NV 89502
8000 Offenhauser Dr Apt 26F
Reno, NV 89511
12183 Andes St
Reno, NV 89506
395 E Grove St Apt 1423
Reno, NV 89502
moving in nearby! SIGN UP NOW
100 Linden St # 11
Reno, NV 89502
7663 Crystal Shores Dr
Reno, NV 89506
1600 S Arlington Ave
Reno, NV 89509
195 W 2nd St Apt 5
Reno, NV 89501
2301 Oddie Blvd Spc 127
Reno, NV 89512
You can cancel your alerts at any time.
Our database shows there are 570 registered Sex Offenders in Reno, NV, a ratio of 24.67 Sex Offenders per 10,000 residents. This is higher than the national average of 15.76 Sex Offenders per 10,000 residents. Records indicate there are 2 incarcerated Sex Offenders in Nevada, as well as 84 offenders whose location is unknown in Nevada due to the Sex Offenders being transient or their address being unmappable.
*No representation is made that the person listed here is currently on the state's offenders registry. All names presented here were gathered at a past date. Some persons listed might no longer be registered offenders and others might have been added. Some addresses or other data might no longer be current. Owners of Homefacts.com assume no responsibility (and expressly disclaim responsibility) for updating this site to keep information current or to ensure the accuracy or completeness of any posted information. Accordingly, you should confirm the accuracy and completeness of all posted information before making any decision related to any data presented on this site.


text:
Location: Suffolk County, LI, NY
Member since 5/25/2010
- 1 total post
- 1 question
Questions from 3218anon
Radiesse Injected to the Lines Between my Brows Caused Pain
I've been taking Tylenol, but believe it or not, it still hurts a lot. Is this common for that area? It's just a little swollen. READ MORE


text:
|Topic Review (Newest First)
Re: Jeff
Originally Posted by Stillraining View Post
Good read thanks...
In all seriousness though... with an n of about 3 it appears as if some of production boats available as both ketch and sloop rigs have identically sized main masts...which seems to eliminate the "lower center of force"/"smaller sails"/"bridge" clearance argument?
Re: Ketch vs Sloop?
Randy, I'm not sure what your friend did. I also adjust the mizzen for balance. I think as long as it is drawing it adds speed. Certainly she is slower without it, and under certain conditions she will sail under mizzen alone. When I sail to anchor, I free the main and staysail. In a light breeze she'll continue to close reach under the mizzen. At times she'll sail up if anchored with the mizzen set. I like the flexibility of my ketch.
Re: Ketch vs Sloop?
Originally Posted by Jeff_H View Post
Increasing backstay tension induces controlled mast bend, which flattens the mainsail and opens the leech of the sail.
Was reading thru this old thread and noted the above comment that was discussing Fractional rigged vessels. I have always wondered how bending the mast can both flatten the sail and open the leech at the same time. Does not opening the leech imply twisting the sail somewhat?
Thanks for the great explanation but this question has always nagged at me
Re: Ketch vs Sloop?
Any healthy ketch, like any healthy sloop will have a balanced helm with some weather helm when reaching or on the wind. A small amount of weather helm, say 3 degrees is good for boat speed and helps the boat stay in the groove while making it easier to steer.
If you are dragging in excess of 4 degrees of weather helm then you are sailing with your parking brake on and that is unhealthy. Given the aft center pf pressure of the typical mizzen it's not unusual for the mizzen to need reefing when the wind exceeds, say 20 apparent, maybe 18 aws for a smaller ketch, just to keep the ketch well balanced. This is not necessarily a bad thing. It's just a function of having that sail area so far aft.
I know I keep repeating this but once again I'll say, it's dangerous to generalize too much. There are great ketches and poor ketches. The Tayana 37 ketch was a far better sailing boat than the cutter version. Much better balanced and better boat speed a s a result. Surprised th hell out of me. But they sold 570 cutters and only 30 ketches ( approx) so go figure.
Re: Ketch vs Sloop?
Gota bring up something in thought..
Many many years ago when learning to sail, (boy scouts) and I'm now in my 60s, our main concern was to trim the sloop to the point where you didnt touch the tiller so underwater drag on the rudder was limited to almost nill. and I've always kept that issue in mind throu many years of racing and now crusing our FIRST 42..
But awhile back I went out with a friend with a ketch and his major concern while using the mizzen was to balance the boat and keep it tracking forward in line..
Now tell me I'm wrong here, but it seemed his actions with the mizzen was counter productive.. and even to the point that a ketch is forced into a straight line and could possably be in a crabbing attitude..
Sort of like a car that would pull to the right so you would adjust the left front brake to keep it tracking straight..
Am I thinking wrong here or is this a concern with adjusting the sails on a ketch..
Re: Ketch vs Sloop?
Lot of good points on both sides.
Being a bit biased, my ketch offers numerous advantages some disadvantages- some of what haven't been discussed.
Sailing notes:
1. tremendous amount of sail configurations
2. add a inner forestay - i.e. cutter rig -makes for a "klutter" term borrowed from Fuji site, great for storm jib
3. Mule sail easily induces lean - greater water line -a smidgen faster, upwind
4. Staysail - makes beam reach a 'blast' literally
5. Extra Sail area combined with the heavy weight enables decent to good light air performance
6. Beating hard up wind in anything under 25 knots loses against most sloops
7. Going from a racing sloop to a cruising slug (ketch) made be a much better sailor, more attuned to perfect sail trim, getting the slots right, proper draft ect.
Cruising notes:
1. relatively long keel and 3-4 sails to trim can easily balance for self steering
2. Shallow long keel offers less area for cross seas to plummet
3. Shallow draft and higher center of gravity in light air makes for uncomfortable motion
4. Mizzen boom makes a great awning support
5. Reefed Mizzen acts as stabilizer at anchor
Day sailing Notes:
1. New people to sailing have 50% more things to help with on a ketch - many like being part of the action
2. Single handed handling is tougher
3. Shallow draft allows getting much closer to shoreline
The Fuji 32 is not a Alden design, but the hull originates from the desk of Clair Oberly designer of the Mariner 31 36 & 40. The superstructure design was appropriated (& compensated?) from the Fuji 35 which Alden did design. The full cut away keel with relatively shallow draft opens up shallow water cruising grounds while the 41' mast slips under many fixed bridges further expanding the cruising grounds. Nearly as many arguments can be made on shallow vs. deep draft boats as sloop versus ketch.
In comparing two very different types of designs from the original question and the intended sailing area of San Francisco bay with some coastal hops either boat should be fine, but not discussed:
1. skill level,
2. normal amount of crew available
3. preferred weather conditions.
San Francisco Bay has 6 ft tide with plenty of depth in 80% of region, the heavier sloop is a better fit for a single hander who wants more coastal hops, ketch may be better for bay explorer with friends.
Ketch vs Sloop?
I enjoyed reading this thread. I would like to add another variable: the free standing mast cat ketch.
I find the free standing mast cat ketch to be very easy for the solo sailor.
No winches, and self tacking sail design is simple when tacking.
No additional hardware such as shrouds and buckles..Etc
Only two lines are on the cockpit
Mizzen boom is half wishbone with loose footed sail.. If one stood at 10 feet one may get hit in the head on a gybe.
Halsey Herreshoff designed cat ketch made by John Newton produced a boat with many considerations regarding safety.
There are many many considerations for selecting a boat, and this thread has provided arguments for those considerations. We regard performance based on the values we deem important:
I find this thread educating and look to sail on as many different sail boats to further my learning.
Thank you fellow sailors for a very enriched thread.
Re: Ketch vs Sloop?
Sometimes the best reason to own a ketch is the fact that you like ketches.
I'm not sure any objective argument beyond that works with today's gear.
I think Jeff has done a great and accurate job of laying out the design considerations.
Re: Ketch vs Sloop?
Wow this thread has some great info and a great back and forth about sloops and ketch rigs. I was just offered a Sabre 28 ketch that is sitting in a friend of a friends back yard for free (I know, there is no such thing). Although after reading this thread I'm thinking that even if the boat is in good shape I may steet clear anyway. The points made about extra cost for more rigging and cluttering up the cockpit have me thinking. As much as I do love the look of a ketch I'm not prepaired to add thousands to my inital expenses for lines, shrouds, etc. I would think that for the price of the extra rigging and other work that it will need (been sitting for 8 years in a backyard under a tree...) I might as well buy something for 10,000 that is ready to sail... I've had my share of project boats and I think I'm over it.
Re: Ketch vs Sloop?
Right after college, I had a job working for a Clipper Marine dealer. My job was assembling and prepping new boats for customers and taking the new owners for introductory sails and sea trials, which sometimes also meant moonlighting doing sailing instruction. I also performed warrantee work on these boats. Consequently, I had a chance to talk to Bill Crealock about the Clippers. His opinion of the clippers was interesting, but not what I would categorize as proud of what Clipper did to his designs.
But like I said many times before, and as you have clearly demonstrated, we each pick our boats for reasons which make sense to us and our circumstance, and justify them to ourselves on that basis.
|This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.
|Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On