Day: March 17, 2020
Instructor Sit Down: A Q&A with Tamryn Spruill
- Which classes do you teach?
- Do you continue to work in your career field outside the classroom?
- What do you wish students understood about their time in college?
WHY COMMUNAL LEARNING (AND CAKE POPS) ARE THE FUTURE OF L&D
Source Knowledge from Inside the Company
1. Focus on Culture First
2. Identify Your Learning Champions
3. Embrace the Unexpected
4. Always Be Iterating
Job-Seeking? Identify What Problem You Will Solve
The problem or pain point could be as simple as “we need someone reliable who can learn our system quickly and replace the employee we just promoted.” Or it might be “we need someone who knows how to turn our print content into interactive media for our website.” Or perhaps it’s “we need someone who not only understands how healthcare clinics work but also speaks Spanish to help us effectively support the healthcare needs of our growing number of Latino patients.”5 Must-Read Articles for the New Year
Must-Read Articles:
Make it a Good Year for Your Career
Are You Hindering Your Own Success?
A Word of Caution about Complaining
How to Become the Boss’s Trusted Advisor
Signs You’re Derailing Your Chances for a Promotion
J&K HC Dismisses PIL Against The Use Of Pellet Guns
In a very significant development, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in a latest, landmark and extremely laudable judgment titled J&K High Court Bar Association v. Union of India & ors. in WP(C) (PIL) no. 14/2016 reserved on February 10, 2020 and pronounced on March 11, 2020 dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought prohibition of use of pellet guns. How long can security forces restrain themselves if public becomes unruly and start pelting stones, bottles and what not? Why can’t the public be more disciplined and not always just shout of fundamental rights promised to them by the Constitution but also play a more responsible role like a good citizen by always complying with the fundamental duties as enshrined in the Constitution?

To start with, a two Judge Bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court comprising of Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey and Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur sets the ball rolling by first and foremost listing the points made by the petitioner in para 1 which runs as follows: “This petition has been filed by the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Bar Association, Srinagar, through its Executive Member, Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Bhat, way back in July, 2016, with the following prayers:
“a) That the respondents, their agents and servants be prohibited by a writ of prohibition from using or caused to be used 12-Bore Pellet Gun and or of any other Bore and Cartridges containing pellets as a means of crowd control against any group of people, including protestors in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The use of pellet gun be totally banned as a means of crowd control.
- b) That all the officers, who took the decision of using the pellet guns at the protestors and non-protestors after 8th July, 2016 and those who actually fired the pellet guns be prosecuted. Cases be directed to be registered against them for causing unlawful bodily injury, deprivation of eye sight etc.
- c) That the respondents, their agents and servants be directed to compensate all those persons whose names are mentioned in the petition as well as those whose particulars will come to the notice of this Hon’ble Court during the hearing of this petition and the compensation be determined in the context of violation of Article 21 of the Constitution as made applicable to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, as these persons have either been deprived of their eye sight and or have suffered bodily injury, trauma, agony, mental pain etc.;
- d) That the Director, SKIMS, Soura, Srinagar, Principal, SKIMS, Medical College, Bemina; Director, Health Services, Kashmir, and the Medical Superintendent, SMHS Hospital be directed to furnish to this Hon’ble Court details of all those persons who reported in the SKIMS, Hospitals, District Hospitals, Sub District Hospitals, Primary Health Centres for treatment on account of pellet injury and the treatment provided to them.
- e) That the State of Jammu and Kashmir through Chief Secretary be directed to furnish report to this Hon’ble Court as to the circumstances and the time decision to refer pellet injury patients outside the State was taken. The respondents be also directed to bring competent and well trained surgeons from outside the State so as to provide treatment to those who are not willing to go outside for treatment or have no means for meeting the expenses of such treatment inside or outside the State. The Court may also determine negligence, if any, caused by any authority of the State in dealing with pellet injury patients.
- d) Any other appropriate writ direction or order as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case be also passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.””
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the matter as pointed out in para 2, it is then brought out in para 3 that, “As per the averments made in the petition, the immediate cause for filing of this writ petition has been the unpleasant events which had occurred from 08.07.2016 wherein, according to the petitioner association, people, including teenagers, watching clashes between protestors and security forces, had received pellet injuries in their eyes, skulls and throats. It is alleged that about 4000 persons were injured and about 100 persons were blinded. The petitioner in para 7(f) of the petition has given particulars of 46 persons whose eyes, according to him, were damaged by pellet injuries. Alleging excessive use of force against protestors, the petitioner in the petition has referred to various provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and other procedures to be adopted for dealing with and dispersal of assemblies. The petitioner association, profusedly, espousing a public interest, has filed this petition with the above prayers.”
Most crucially, it is then laudably pointed out elegantly in para 12 that, “Having considered the matter, in view of the above, we are of the opinion that so far as the constitutional tort is concerned, the State has fulfilled its obligation, inasmuch as they have made ex-gratia payments to most of the injured persons as mentioned above, and with respect to the remaining it is categorically stated that their cases shall be decided in tune with the Government policy in that behalf in due course of time. We think that in the event any individual person feels that he has not been adequately compensated commensurate with the injury he had suffered, nothing can come in his way to claim such compensation as he may wish from the State under the private law in an action based on tort through a suit instituted in a court of competent jurisdiction. This Court in this PIL, in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot grant a relief to the satisfaction of every such individual allegedly injured in police action, especially so when there is a finding recorded by the Court in its order dated 21.09.2016 that almost every day, in the guise of protests, the security personnel, their camps and Police Stations were targeted by unruly crowds, and that, if the protest is not peaceful and the security persons are attacked by huge and violent mobs, they have to necessarily use force in their self defence and for protecting public property. Therefore, strictly speaking, it is not a case where compensation is being sought or claimed for wrong doing of any security force personnel, or for violating any fundamental right of any citizen by them, but for discharge of public duty by such security force personnel, or for violating any fundamental right of any citizen by them, but for discharge of public duty by such security force personnel who were being attacked by violent mobs during the relevant period. In any case, since the Government has discharged its obligation, nothing more needs to be done in this PIL.”
No doubt, each and every true Indian must be proud for what the Jammu and Kashmir High Court has held so explicitly and elegantly! How can security forces function smoothly if their hands are tied? How can public beating security forces be ever justified under the garb of “right to dissent”? Who will join security forces if the High Courts and Supreme Court justify attack on security forces, blocking of roads, burning of Constitution and national flags and chanting of pro-Pakistani slogans as “right to dissent”?
Mercifully, we see that the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Bench comprising of Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey have commendably taken the right stand in this leading case which will send the right message to all citizens that, “You cannot on one hand spread hatred, violence and attacks and on the other hand demand that security forces just keep tolerating everything quietly without saying anything or without retaliating”!
How can attack on police station be ever justified? How can attack on security personnel and their camps be ever justified under any circumstances? How can violence by unruly crowds be ever justified?
How can they be allowed to do what they feel like doing? Have we not seen what the rioters did just recently in Delhi where more than 50 persons have died and the casualty is rising higher and higher with every passing day? Which High Court or even Supreme Court will ever try to justify it in the garb of “right to dissent”?
God help our country if ever Courts try to justify it on any ground whatsoever! Even God helps those who helps themselves! If our Courts try to justify blocking of roads under the garb of “right to dissent”, chanting of anti national slogans under this same garb and attacking our security forces and killing our police men as we saw most recently in Delhi when Head Constable Ratan Lal died of bullet injuries then we are certainly fit to be termed as a “lawless country” where everything is sought to be justified under the shameless garb of “right to dissent” just like Pakistan is fit to be termed as a “terror state” where terror groups operate with impunity with active blessings of Pakistani Army, Government and Judiciary!
Mercifully, again we have not descended to that niggardly level! This is exemplified most recently by this latest and extremely commendable judgment of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court where it has rightly refused any relief from pellet guns to those who attack police station and security forces camps! All courts must draw some lessons from this and advise people to stop justifying attacks on forces, chanting of anti national slogans and glorifying of Pakistan under any circumstances! India is India and it cannot become Pakistan ever! Pakistan split in 1971 when Bangladesh was born but India has remained united from 1947 to 2020 because we are a democratic country where people enjoy maximum freedom as my best friend Sageer Khan said way back in 1993 that, “Muslims enjoy maximum liberty in India. In Pakistan they are suppressed and that is why it split in 1971 and even now Indians who went to Pakistan in 1947 are still treated with contempt, are termed as Mohajjirs and discriminated against! Same holds true for Pashtuns, Balochis, Sindhis and people of PoK along with other regions! But in India Muslims enjoy polygamy even though it was banned among Hindus in 1955 yet Hindus never said a word. Triple talaq was banned in 1961 in Pakistan but we are still enjoying it along with Nikah Halala! Muslims enjoy all facilities in India and are allowed to become President also as also can occupy any other post and Muslim dominated Jammu and Kashmir enjoy so many rights yet they keep complaining but see how Hindus are treated in Pakistan where they have no right to life and are treated as “second grade citizens”! Muslims must learn tolerance from Hindus and treat Kashi, Ayodhya and Mathura as Hindu pilgrim sites just like we treat Mecca and Medina as Muslim pilgrim sites and never allow even a single temple anywhere not just in Mecca or Medina but in any other place in Saudi Arabia or any other Gulf country! Only then can our country become more powerful!”
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.
Why Travel to China? Exploring the Benefits of China

- Work ethic: Chinese workers are as hardworking as any country I’ve ever visited. Long hours and doing the job right dominates. Employees will work late because “I didn’t complete my assignment by quitting time.” This may change as Western business culture gets more exposure in China.
- Personal responsibility: Chinese people take responsibility for their actions. The blame game is rare in China.
- Business relationships are based mostly on the personal relationship of those involved.
- Contracts exist of course, but often mean little as the legal system is still in its infancy.
- Communications: Americans tend to get to the point and be straightforward in expressing their opinions whether delivering good or bad news. This is not so true in China.
- Education is held in high regard and Chinese students are under great pressure to do well in their studies.
- Crime rate and drug use are much lower than in the United States as a result of penalties and cultural norms.

Tap into Nursing with the National Student Nurses Association Richmond Chapter
And organizers start by making sure nursing students can join.Refugee Can Pursue Claim For Damages Against Government For Illegal Detention: UK SC
In a fresh development with far reaching consequences, the United Kingdom (UK) Supreme Court has most recently, most remarkably and most rightly held in a latest, landmark and extremely laudable judgment titled R (on the application of DN (Rwanda)) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) [2020] UKSC 7 that was delivered on 26 February 2020 whereupon it minced no words to send across a simple, sensible and straight message that refugee can pursue claim for damages against government for illegal detention. No government can claim an unchecked and unrestricted right to hold a refugee in illegal detention! This is exactly the sum and substance of the extremely commendable judgment delivered by the UK Supreme Court which has to be applauded in no uncertain terms!
To start with, this notable judgment authored by Lord Kerr for himself and with whom Lord Wilson, Lady Black and Lord Kitchin agree first and foremost set the ball rolling by pointing out in para 1 that, “The appellant was born in Rwanda. He came to the United Kingdom in August 2000 and sought refugee status because of what he claimed was a well-founded fear of persecution if he returned to his native land. His claim was accepted on 26 October 2000 on the basis that he was a member of a particular social group (Hutu). He was recognized as a refugee pursuant to the 1951 Refugee Convention and granted indefinite leave to remain.”
While elaborating further, it is then pointed out in para 2 that, “Since he arrived in the United Kingdom DN has been convicted of a number of offences. He has also been cautioned twice. The most significant of his convictions occurred on 22 January 2007 when he pleaded guilty to assisting the unlawful entry of a non-EEA national to the United Kingdom contrary to section 25 of the Immigration Act 1971. The circumstances leading to the conviction were these: DN and his sister had travelled to the Netherlands where they met a niece. DN returned to the UK with his niece who used his sister’s travel documents in an attempt to obtain entry to this country. Although this was a serious offence, it was accepted by the trial judge that DN had no financial motivation for the crime.”
To be sure, it is then illustrated in para 3 that, “At the same court before which he had pleaded guilty to the immigration offence, however, DN was convicted, again on his plea of guilty, of three offences of obtaining or attempting to obtain a pecuniary advantage by seeking or taking employment in another’s name. He was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment for the Immigration Act offence and two months consecutively for each of the three pecuniary advantage offences making a total sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment.”
In hindsight, it is then unearthed in para 4 that, “On 2 July 2007 DN completed the custodial element of his sentence. On the same date the Home Secretary decided to deport him subject to a final decision on the issue of his refugee status. This was followed by a decision on 3 July that DN should be deported pursuant to article 33(2) of the Refugee Convention which allows the expulsion of refugees “whom there are reasonable grounds for regarding as a danger to the security of the country”. It was said that DN had been convicted of a “particularly serious crime” and that he “constituted a danger to the community”. The decision was based on section 72(4)(a) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. He was notified of the decision to deport him, and detained on foot of that decision on 2 July 2007, pursuant to paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971, which provides that where notice has been given to a person of a decision to make a deportation order against him, he may be detained under the authority of the Secretary of State pending the making of the deportation order.”
Going forward, it is then stated in para 5 that, “Pursuant to powers conferred by section 72(4)(a) of the 2002 Act, the Home Secretary had made the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Specification of Particularly Serious Crimes) Order 2004. This specified several offences which were said to be particularly serious crimes. Assisting unlawful immigration to a member state contrary to section 25 of the 1971 Act was included among them. On that basis, the appellant’s conviction for the immigration offence was deemed to warrant his deportation. Section 72(4)(a) also provided that a person convicted of an offence specified in the 2004 order was rebuttably presumed to have been guilty of a particularly serious crime and constituted a danger to the community.”
As a corollary, what follows next is stated in para 6 that, “DN appealed the Home Secretary’s decision. His appeal was heard by the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (“AIT”) on 22 August 2007. On 29 August the tribunal dismissed the appeal. It found that the appellant constituted a danger to the community of the United Kingdom, that his attempt to circumvent the immigration law in itself amounted to a danger to the community; that he could now be expelled pursuant to article 33(2) of the Refugee Convention; and that he had failed to rebut the presumption created by the 2004 Order that a person convicted of an offence specified by the Order was deemed to have been convicted of a particularly serious crime and to constitute a danger to the community of the United Kingdom. DN sought reconsideration of the decision. On 18 September 2007 that was refused. An application for a statutory review by the High Court of the AIT’s decision under section 103A of the 2002 Act was dismissed on 7 December 2007. On 31 January 2008 the Secretary of State signed the deportation order and made an order for DN’s detention pending deportation. That order was made pursuant to paragraph 2(3) of Schedule 3 to the 1971 Act which, although subsequently amended, at the time provided that “Where a deportation order is in force against any person, he may be detained under the authority of the Secretary of State pending his removal or departure from the United Kingdom (and if already detained by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) or (2) above when the order is made, shall continue to be detained unless he is released on bail or the Secretary of State directs otherwise).” (Emphasis added).”
Importantly, it is then brought out in para 7 that, “Before the deportation order was signed, no suggestion had been made on DN’s behalf that the 2004 Order was unlawful. After it was made, however, solicitors, who had replaced those who originally acted for DN, wrote to the Secretary of State making that precise case. On that account the Secretary of State was invited to revoke the deportation order. It was also claimed that DN’s detention since 2 July 2007 was unlawful. On 29 February 2008 the appellant was released on bail by order of an immigration judge. By that time, he had spent 242 days in immigration detention.”
No doubt, the simple and straightforward questions that need to be asked here are: How can the illegal detention of DN be justified under any circumstances? How can the 242 days that DN spent in immigration detention be glossed over? How can the claim for damages of DN be overlooked?
More importantly, we need to pay heed to what is stated in para 20 that, “The need for finality in litigation likewise does not warrant displacement of the Lumba principle. As Lord Carnwath says (para 38 of his judgment), finality and legal certainty are desirable objectives. But they cannot extinguish a clear legal right. In this case DN was detained on foot of an intended, and then actual, deportation order which proved to be unlawful. His detention was uniquely linked to that deportation order. The unlawfulness of that detention is inescapable. The desiderata of finality and certainty cannot impinge on that inevitable result.”
Equally important if not more is what is then stated in para 25 that, “If, and inasmuch as, Ullah suggests that paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 3 provides a stand-alone authority for lawful detention, no matter what has gone before, and irrespective of the fact that the decision to deport lacks a legal basis, I consider that the decision was wrong and should now be recognised as such. The giving of notice of the decision to make a deportation order, the making of the deportation order, and the detention on foot of it are essential steps in the same transaction. The detention depends for its legality on the lawfulness of the deportation itself. Absent a lawful basis for the making of a deportation order, it is not possible to breathe legal life into the decision to detain.”
Most importantly, it is then very rightly held in para 26 that, “I would allow the appeal and confirm that the appellant is entitled to pursue a claim for damages for false imprisonment. The prospects of success in that claim are not, of course, a matter for this court, particularly because lines of possible defence to the claimant’s case, not pursued (or, at least, not pursued with any vigour), might be canvassed on the hearing of the claim.”
All told, it is a no-brainer that all the courts in all the countries must always pay heed to what has been held by the UK Supreme Court in this extremely landmark case and hold the concerned Government accountable for false imprisonment of a refugee and for violating his/her human rights with impunity! Of course, it is a cardinal principle of law that even refugees have human rights which are sacrosanct and must always be accorded the highest esteem! If any Government fails to do so then they also must be ready to pay compensation for human rights violations as we see in this DN case of UK!
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.
Put Your Best Cover Letter Forward
HOW TO HELP EMPLOYEES STRUGGLING OUTSIDE OF THE OFFICE
1) Encourage Use of the EAP
2) Be Flexible With Schedules
3) Be Kind
Jobs You Can Get with a Human Resources Degree
Payroll & Timekeepers: Do you love the world of numbers, but also enjoy working with others? Payroll & Timekeepers get to enjoy the best of both worlds. As a Payroll & Timekeeper, you act as a liaison between employees and the payroll department. You are responsible for collecting and tracking employee time cards, as well as submitting the appropriate forms and/or electronic records to your payroll department. A Payroll & Timekeeper is also responsible for processing paperwork pertaining to social security, health insurance, and retirement benefits. For more details click here.
First-line Supervisor/Manager of Administrative Employees: The First-line Supervisor or Manager of administrative support employees is a default human resources specialist. In this position, you will provide the same type of services for your department that an HR specialist provides for the entire company. Keeping track of employee records and work performance, mediating employee relations, and interviewing perspective employees will fall under your jurisdiction. A human resources degree can help to provide the knowledge and skills you need to excel in your managerial duties.
- Accounting
- Office and computer technology
- Compensation and benefits
- Local, state and national employment laws and ethics in the business environment
- Employee Relations
- And more.
Webinar: “It Really Is a Team Effort – How Employees and Employers Create High-Performance Workplaces,” with Kim Dority
Acclaimed career coach Kim Dority discussed in depth, multiple strategies to help managers and staff work together to improve workplace morale with acclaimed career coach Kim Dority. Kim is a frequent presenter for Bryant & Stratton College Online and has been writing about and teaching courses on career training for more than a decade. Registrants who attended this free event learned more about the best practices on how to improve the workplace, including assuming personal responsibility, engaging with fellow colleagues and creating strategic plans on both the individual and team level. This webinar will enable attendees to:- Create and take charge of their own professional growth agenda
- Align their agenda with the strategic goals of their team, department and organization
- Help managers create an environment that elicits and supports the best efforts of their diverse team members.
Webinar: "It Really Is a Team Effort – How Employees and Employers Create High-Performance Workplaces," with Kim Dority
Acclaimed career coach Kim Dority discussed in depth, multiple strategies to help managers and staff work together to improve workplace morale with acclaimed career coach Kim Dority. Kim is a frequent presenter for Bryant & Stratton College Online and has been writing about and teaching courses on career training for more than a decade. Registrants who attended this free event learned more about the best practices on how to improve the workplace, including assuming personal responsibility, engaging with fellow colleagues and creating strategic plans on both the individual and team level. This webinar will enable attendees to:- Create and take charge of their own professional growth agenda
- Align their agenda with the strategic goals of their team, department and organization
- Help managers create an environment that elicits and supports the best efforts of their diverse team members.
Why Travel to China? Exploring the Benefits of China

- Work ethic: Chinese workers are as hardworking as any country I’ve ever visited. Long hours and doing the job right dominates. Employees will work late because “I didn’t complete my assignment by quitting time.” This may change as Western business culture gets more exposure in China.
- Personal responsibility: Chinese people take responsibility for their actions. The blame game is rare in China.
- Business relationships are based mostly on the personal relationship of those involved.
- Contracts exist of course, but often mean little as the legal system is still in its infancy.
- Communications: Americans tend to get to the point and be straightforward in expressing their opinions whether delivering good or bad news. This is not so true in China.
- Education is held in high regard and Chinese students are under great pressure to do well in their studies.
- Crime rate and drug use are much lower than in the United States as a result of penalties and cultural norms.




You must be logged in to post a comment.