User:Abirajeng
WELCOME TO THE USER PAGE OF ABIRAJ
Introduction
Abiraj Anandanadarajah of Colombo, Sri Lanka, possessor of User “Abirajeng” is an University undergraduate student. Basically, he is a Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering undergraduate of Faculty of Engineering, University of Ruhuna, Galle, Sri Lanka. He is a Sri Lankan Tamil, speaking Tamil as his mother tongue while he can speak in English and Sinhala which is the Major language of the country.
As far as his family is concerned, both his father and mother retired government officers. His father was a Senior Labour Officer (SLO) and mother was an Asst. Commissioner of Labour (ACL) under the ministry of the Labour. He has got two brothers and two sisters and he is the last in his family.
Working Experience
He had worked at British American Tobacco (Ceylon) as the trainee engineer where he was involved in managerial operations and production and planning. Also, he had worked in Techmast Automation (Pvt) Ltd as the trainee engineer where he was involved in various activities including workshop practices, automation, PLCs, pneumatics and so on.
Activities
He is a supporter of Wikipedia Organization by editing and writing the articles as a public service. He is interested in writing poems, singing & googling as a hobby.
Today's Featured Article
City of Champaign v. Madigan is a 2013 case decided by the Appellate Court of the US state of Illinois, ruling that messages sent and received by elected officials during a city council meeting and pertaining to public business are public records subject to disclosure, even when stored on personal electronic devices. It was the first court ruling in Illinois to hold that private messages were subject to disclosure under the state's Freedom of Information Act. The case addressed a public records request from a reporter for The News-Gazette in Champaign, Illinois, who observed city council members and the mayor using their personal electronic devices to send messages during a city council meeting. City officials denied the reporter's request; the case eventually reached the Appellate Court, which held that public officials have to disclose their records, even if they are stored on a personal electronic device or account, but only when acting as a public body, such as during a council meeting. (Full article...)
