Barkha Shukla slams the Aam Aadmi Party for part in the selection of DCW members . Barkha Shukla says the Aam Aadmi Party is in charge of the appointment fraud .
New Delhi (India), December 9, 2014: Barkha Shukla, the former Delhi Commission for Women chief, slammed the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) for part in the selection of DCW members, insisting that there was no conduct of formal examinations during their recruitment.The court found prima facie evidence that the accused have breached their official position by allegedly appointing Aam Admi Party (AAP) workers to different posts in the commission.Maliwals secretary Archana Arora, a CWA officer, resigned after resigning due to unfair treatment she was given.They recruited their own staff.There has been a lot of unrest.Maliwals secretary should be an IAS officer.Archana Arora had been there earlier, but she resigned because they misbehaved with her.According to Shokla, the Aam Aadmi Partys is in charge of the appointment fraud. It's an AAP bri Under the watchful eye of the Aam Aadmi Party, it all happens.They do what they want.Before making a candidate a member, the degree of education and social work experience of the candidate were not checked.The court noted earlier on Thursday that a strong suspicion has been raised against all four accused persons, and that the facts show prima facie evidence to launch charges against all four accused persons for offences covered by IPC rw Sec. For the substantive offence Us 13(2) rw Sec.13(1)(d)13(2) of the POC Act, 13(1)(d)13(2), as well as the administrative offence.According to the POC Act, 13(1)(2) states that the Special Judge Dig Vinay Singh said that charges must be framed accordingly along with DCW Chairperson Swati Maliwal.According to the charges, all four accused in the scheme were involved in defaming their official status and profiting from the party workers and acquaintances of Swati Maliwal as well as the ruling party, AAP. Instead, the appointments were made in defiance of protocols, Rules, and Rules, without even advertising for the positions, and funds were distributed to various such individuals as compensation and other honorarium, the Court ruled, citing the examination of the minutes of the meetings held by the DCW on various dates, which all four accused were signatories, as sufficient to establish a strong suspicion that the appointments were made by the accused persons in agreement with each other.