Who, among the following was/were conferred with the Prime Minister's Awards for Excellence in Public Administration recently by Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh ? (i) Nirmala Joshi (ii) Rajiv Chawla (iii) R.S. Pandey (iv) Prasoon Goyal ?->(Show Answer!)

1. Who, among the following was/were conferred with the Prime Minister's Awards for Excellence in Public Administration recently by Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh ? (i) Nirmala Joshi (ii) Rajiv Chawla (iii) R.S. Pandey (iv) Prasoon Goyal

Write Comment

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->The newly appointed Censor Board chief Prasoon Joshi is an advertising professional. With which agency is he associated with ?....

QA->Which central government department was awarded the Prime Minister’s Award for Excellence in Public Administration?....

QA->Who is appointed as honorary economic adviser to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh?....

QA->Who has been appointed as the Advisor to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Infrastructure, Innovation and Information?....

QA->During Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh"s visit to Africa, India offered to Africa credit line worth --3....

MCQ->Who, among the following was/were conferred with the Prime Minister's Awards for Excellence in Public Administration recently by Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh ? (i) Nirmala Joshi (ii) Rajiv Chawla (iii) R.S. Pandey (iv) Prasoon Goyal....

MCQ-> The current debate on intellectual property rights (IPRs) raises a number of important issues concerning the strategy and policies for building a more dynamic national agricultural research system, the relative roles of public and private sectors, and the role of agribusiness multinational corporations (MNCs). This debate has been stimulated by the international agreement on Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs), negotiated as part of the Uruguay Round. TRIPs, for the first time, seeks to bring innovations in agricultural technology under a new worldwide IPR regime. The agribusiness MNCs (along with pharmaceutical companies) played a leading part in lobbying for such a regime during the Uruguay Round negotiations. The argument was that incentives are necessary to stimulate innovations, and that this calls for a system of patents which gives innovators the sole right to use (or sell/lease the right to use) their innovations for a specified period and protects them against unauthorised copying or use. With strong support of their national governments, they were influential in shaping the agreement on TRIPs, which eventually emerged from the Uruguay Round. The current debate on TRIPs in India - as indeed elsewhere - echoes wider concerns about ‘privatisation’ of research and allowing a free field for MNCs in the sphere of biotechnology and agriculture. The agribusiness corporations, and those with unbounded faith in the power of science to overcome all likely problems, point to the vast potential that new technology holds for solving the problems of hunger, malnutrition and poverty in the world. The exploitation of this potential should be encouraged and this is best done by the private sector for which patents are essential. Some, who do not necessarily accept this optimism, argue that fears of MNC domination are exaggerated and that farmers will accept their products only if they decisively outperform the available alternatives. Those who argue against agreeing to introduce an IPR regime in agriculture and encouraging private sector research are apprehensive that this will work to the disadvantage of farmers by making them more and more dependent on monopolistic MNCs. A different, though related apprehension is that extensive use of hybrids and genetically engineered new varieties might increase the vulnerability of agriculture to outbreaks of pests and diseases. The larger, longer-term consequences of reduced biodiversity that may follow from the use of specially bred varieties are also another cause for concern. Moreover, corporations, driven by the profit motive, will necessarily tend to underplay, if not ignore, potential adverse consequences, especially those which are unknown and which may manifest themselves only over a relatively long period. On the other hand, high-pressure advertising and aggressive sales campaigns by private companies can seduce farmers into accepting varieties without being aware of potential adverse effects and the possibility of disastrous consequences for their livelihood if these varieties happen to fail. There is no provision under the laws, as they now exist, for compensating users against such eventualities. Excessive preoccupation with seeds and seed material has obscured other important issues involved in reviewing the research policy. We need to remind ourselves that improved varieties by themselves are not sufficient for sustained growth of yields. in our own experience, some of the early high yielding varieties (HYVs) of rice and wheat were found susceptible to widespread pest attacks; and some had problems of grain quality. Further research was necessary to solve these problems. This largely successful research was almost entirely done in public research institutions. Of course, it could in principle have been done by private companies, but whether they choose to do so depends crucially on the extent of the loss in market for their original introductions on account of the above factors and whether the companies are financially strong enough to absorb the ‘losses’, invest in research to correct the deficiencies and recover the lost market. Public research, which is not driven by profit, is better placed to take corrective action. Research for improving common pool resource management, maintaining ecological health and ensuring sustainability is both critical and also demanding in terms of technological challenge and resource requirements. As such research is crucial to the impact of new varieties, chemicals and equipment in the farmer’s field, private companies should be interested in such research. But their primary interest is in the sale of seed materials, chemicals, equipment and other inputs produced by them. Knowledge and techniques for resource management are not ‘marketable’ in the same way as those inputs. Their application to land, water and forests has a long gestation and their efficacy depends on resolving difficult problems such as designing institutions for proper and equitable management of common pool resources. Public or quasi-public research institutions informed by broader, long-term concerns can only do such work. The public sector must therefore continue to play a major role in the national research system. It is both wrong and misleading to pose the problem in terms of public sector versus private sector or of privatisation of research. We need to address problems likely to arise on account of the public-private sector complementarity, and ensure that the public research system performs efficiently. Complementarity between various elements of research raises several issues in implementing an IPR regime. Private companies do not produce new varieties and inputs entirely as a result of their own research. Almost all technological improvement is based on knowledge and experience accumulated from the past, and the results of basic and applied research in public and quasi-public institutions (universities, research organisations). Moreover, as is increasingly recognised, accumulated stock of knowledge does not reside only in the scientific community and its academic publications, but is also widely diffused in traditions and folk knowledge of local communities all over. The deciphering of the structure and functioning of DNA forms the basis of much of modern biotechnology. But this fundamental breakthrough is a ‘public good’ freely accessible in the public domain and usable free of any charge. Various techniques developed using that knowledge can however be, and are, patented for private profit. Similarly, private corporations draw extensively, and without any charge, on germplasm available in varieties of plants species (neem and turmeric are by now famous examples). Publicly funded gene banks as well as new varieties bred by public sector research stations can also be used freely by private enterprises for developing their own varieties and seek patent protection for them. Should private breeders be allowed free use of basic scientific discoveries? Should the repositories of traditional knowledge and germplasm be collected which are maintained and improved by publicly funded organisations? Or should users be made to pay for such use? If they are to pay, what should be the basis of compensation? Should the compensation be for individuals or (or communities/institutions to which they belong? Should individual institutions be given the right of patenting their innovations? These are some of the important issues that deserve more attention than they now get and need serious detailed study to evolve reasonably satisfactory, fair and workable solutions. Finally, the tendency to equate the public sector with the government is wrong. The public space is much wider than government departments and includes co- operatives, universities, public trusts and a variety of non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Giving greater autonomy to research organisations from government control and giving non- government public institutions the space and resources to play a larger, more effective role in research, is therefore an issue of direct relevance in restructuring the public research system.Which one of the following statements describes an important issue, or important issues, not being raised in the context of the current debate on IPRs?
....

MCQ-> Study the following information carefully and answer the questions given below : Eight persons- P, Q, R, S, T, U, V and W - are sitting around a square table in such Question : way that four of them sit at four corners of the square while other four sit in the middle of each of the four sides. P, Q, R and S are facing towards the centre of table while T, U, V and W are facing outside. The ones who sit at the four corners face towards the centre while those who sit in the middle of the sides face outside. Each one of them has different legislative post viz, Defence Secretary, Finance Minister, Home Minister, Foreign Minister, HRD Minister, Education Minister, Prime Minister and Leader of Opposition but not necessarily in the same order. W is the second to the right of the Leader of Opposition. The Leader of Opposition is facing outside. T is the third to the left of Finance Minister. Finance Minister is not the immediate neighbour of W or Defence Secretary. R is not the Prime Minister and he is not the immediate neighbour of HRD Minister. U is to the immediate left of Prime Minister. Prime Minister is not the immediate neighbour of Defence Secretary. Home Minister and Foreign Minister are immediate neighbours of each other. Foreign Minister is not the immediate neighbour of the Leader of Opposition. There is only one person between Home Minister and S. V is Education Minister and he is not the immediate neighbour of P. S is not the Prime Minister.Who among the following is the Prime Minister ?
....

MCQ-> Read the following caselet and choose the best alternative: Head of a nation in the Nordic region was struggling with the slowing economy on one hand and restless citizens on the other. In addition, his opponents were doing everything possible to discredit his government. As a famous saying goes, "There is no smoke without a fire", it cannot be said that the incumbent government was doing all the right things. There were reports of acts of omission and commission coming out every other day. Distribution of public resources for private businesses and for private consumption had created a lot of problems for the government. It was being alleged that the government has given the right to exploit these public resources at throw-away prices to some private companies. Some of the citizens were questioning the government policies in the Supreme Court of the country as well as in the media. In the midst of all this, the head of the nation called his cabinet colleagues for a meeting on the recent happenings in the country. He asked his minister of water resources about the bidding process for allocation of rights to setup mini-hydel power plants. To this, the minister replied that his ministry had followed the laid out policies of the government. Water resources were allocated to those private companies that bid the highest and were technically competent. The minister continued that later on some new companies had shown interest and they were allowed to enter the sector as per the guidelines of the Government. This, the minister added, would facilitate proper utilization of water resources and provide better services to the citizens. The new companies were allocated the rights at the price set by the highest bidders in the previous round of bidding. After hearing this, the head of the nation that one would expect the later allocations to be done after a fresh round of bidding. The minister of water resources replied that his ministry had taken permissions from the concerned ministries before allocating the resources to the new companies.Media reports suggested that the minister of water resources had deliberately allocated the water resources at old prices to the new companies, and in return some received kickbacks. However, the minister denied these charges. His counter argument was that he followed the stated policies of the Government and it is very difficult to price a scarce resource. He also said that the loss that the media is talking about is notional and in reality the Government and the citizens have gained by the entry of new players. Which of the following is the most appropriate inference?
....

MCQ-> A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H are eight employees of an organization working in three departments viz. Personnel, Administration and Marketing with not more than three of them in any department. Each of them has a different choice of sports from football, cricket, volleyball, badminton, lawn tennis, basketball, hockey and table tennis not necessarily in the same order. D works in Administration and does not like either football or cricket. F works in Personnel with only A who likes table tennis. Eand H do not work in the same department as D. C likes hockey and does not work in marketing. G does not work in administration and does not like either cricket or badminton. One of those who work in administration likes football. The one who likes volleyball works in personnel. None of those who work in administration likes either badminton or lawn tennis. H does not like cricket.Which of the following groups of employees work in Administration department ?
....