According to sources, CBDT may release new recruitment rule for Inspectors and E.A.s today. Though those rules are awaiting approval of DOPT, those may be notified on adhoc basis to enable the CCITs to effect promotions.
It is also gathered that during the meeting of all Addl.CsIT (H.Qrs)convened on 15.04.2014 at New Delhi, the Board has provided all the Addl. CsIT (H.Qrs) details of letters of requisition sent to SSC for all cadres from vacancy year 1986-87 and onwards (2001-02 in the case of TAs) in tabular form. According to the said details DRs of 2005 are to be assigned seniority with reference to Recruitment Year 2006-07. The Board has directed all Addl.CsIT (H.Qrs.) to prepare seniority lists accordingly.
It may kindly be noted that above information is only based on update from sources, no authentic document is available till now.
It is also gathered that during the meeting of all Addl.CsIT (H.Qrs)convened on 15.04.2014 at New Delhi, the Board has provided all the Addl. CsIT (H.Qrs) details of letters of requisition sent to SSC for all cadres from vacancy year 1986-87 and onwards (2001-02 in the case of TAs) in tabular form. According to the said details DRs of 2005 are to be assigned seniority with reference to Recruitment Year 2006-07. The Board has directed all Addl.CsIT (H.Qrs.) to prepare seniority lists accordingly.
It may kindly be noted that above information is only based on update from sources, no authentic document is available till now.
19 comments:
will the passing seniority be continued further or not?
EA is entry cadre or promotion cadre only?
itef head please tell us the diverted post will be sent alongwith supporting staff or only the posts.
How authentic is this news? pls upload any documentary evidence.
माननीय डीओपीटी, नई दिल्ली क़पया करके 2008 से पहले के सभी दैनिक वेतन भोगी कर्मचारियों के लिए भी कोई आदेश पारित करने का कष्ट कर दें
How can these illegal DR ITI of 2005 batch be given seniority in 2006-07...???? Whether Administration has gone MAD...Senior officials pls do sth...send these fellows to Home...My dear ITIs for mental peace let us honour the SC order and stream line the issue...I am a DR ITI of 2005 batch and request all who are claiming that my recruitment is illegal take a challenge and do sth....Further we are moving in the proper direction...bcz TRUTH can be delayed not denied...Sorry if I hurt any one...
please clarify that whether seniority will be given in all the direct recruited cadre i.e. TA, steno and ITI from requisition of vacancy reported to ssc or only for ITI cadre.
This is clear controversy on se seniorty with dopt and cbdt on dopt clarification dt 4.3.14 beacuse one side cbdt asked to ccit to give seniorty on dopt said clarification and another side cbdt asked to give seniorty to dr iti .sab golmam hai bhai golmal hai. Sab apna apna time pass kar rehe hai
Respected Sirs...DOPT recent OM is perfectly fine...Problem is with interpretation and interference of ITEF...CBDT knows the reality as well as DR ITI....slowly everything is coming on line...to protect own Skin and get vote...ITEF is misguiding its own members from very beginning.Am I wrong..???? After recent DOPT OM...only last line and point no.5(h) is highlighted before all by ITEF / PR ITI...but DOPT OM also has given some points in 5(a) to 5(g)....but you dont want to understand...only ITEF Neta's word is final for you...But pls tell as on date...what is happening.Only difference between DR & PR on this issue is... we all believe on Rule & DOPT OM and act as per law...but PR friends not using anything except HEAR-SAY [and experience of wrong rule which are followed as on date in Dept] and relying heavily on so called netas of ITEF....Result is this...Respected Sirs...We have highest regard for you...but experience does not work in legal issue and when rule comes into action...all will Silent...Still you want to Drag issue..all the Best...
In karnataka, promottee ITIs have given representation to dismiss DR ITI of 2005 exam as the recruitment done by SSC is illegal and done only to help certain people.
the vacancy increased due to CR is for v.y.2013-14 or 2014-15? if it is for the v.y.2013-14 then how the new recruitment rule will be followed? Is is very shocking that board taking decision independently without any further discussion with union?
Are bhaisab, authorities union ka kab suna hein. Can you point out a single incident in the recent past? Aur vaise bhi Board ne jo naye RR ki mamle mein ab kiya hein, sahi kiya hein.
Present status Pls!
at least in the new recruitment rules, neither the DoPT nor the CBDT has mentioned that notional seniority could not be given to direct recruitees till he/she joins the service. If this was mentioned in the recruitment rules, then there will be no litigation of NR permar type of cases will come and promotees will once for all felt happy as there will be no moral loss or agony. But this time also was not done a fresh rather it is continued the same of very old 1969 rules.Because, the government wants always litigation amongst employees and to rule them by devide and rule policy.
Where are rules
DIVIDE & RULE - ANGREJ CHALE GAYE NITI CHHOD GAYE !!! NOW THE LDC AND UDC WILL FIGHT AND ULTIMATELY WHAT THE BANDAR WANTS AFTER CAT FIGHT WILL GET THE DR INSPECTOR DO NOT UNDERSTAND AT THIS STAGE BUT WHEN THEY WILL FACE AFTER GETTING THE PROMOTION AND JUNIOR AC WILL BE HIS BOSS THEN THEY REALISE THE TACTICS shame full as administrator i.e. CCIT GUJARAT THAT HE IS PLAYING GAME THOUGH ALL THE PERSON WHO WERE IN THE COMMITTEE KNOWS THAT THEY ARE DOING ABSOLUTELY WRONG AND WHO WELL SAVE THEM FROM THE CONTEMPT OF THE APEX COURT AS WELL AS CAT OF AHMEDABAD, THEY ALSO UPPER THAN CBDT DOPT AND LEGAL CELL
whether any committee has having power beyond the Apex Court ? Whether any thing on presumption is permitted while deciding service matter ? The CCIT Guj. mentioned that requisition of 5 DRs were sent to SSC pertaining to R.Y. 2001-02 FOR EXAM 2005 after getting clearance from screening committee in year 2006-07 requisition of 20DRs were sent to SSC pertaining to R.Y. 2002-03 TO 2005-06 FOR EXAM 2005 after getting clearance from screening committee in year 2006-07 AND REQUISITION OF 32 DRS WERE SENT TO SSC PERTAINING TO RY 2006-07 . ACTUALLY AHMEDABAD CCIT SENT REQUISITIONS FOR 2001-02 OF 21 CANDIDATES ON 16/10/2003 WHERE FOR 2002-03 TO 2005-06, 20 ON 04/12/2006 AND FOR 2006-07 & 2007-08 COMBINED REQUESITIONS SEND OF 18 CANDIDATES ON 23/01/2008 YAR YAH LOG TO POLITICIANS BHI GAYE GUJRE LAGTE HAI WHY THE CAPTAIN HIMSELF TRY FOR DISPUTE AMONGST ALL LOWER CADRE
When on money transactions could not be proved in matter of capital gain tax, the Supremecourt has struck down the section 52 of the Incometax Act in KP verghese case. ie Upto that date whatever the tax collections made by the department in this type of cases are to be refunded to the assessee. NO, DEFINITELY NOT. Neither the Supreme court nor the Ministry of Finance has directed the AOs to refund the tax collections to the assessee where similar issue was there.
After that,finally section 50C was introduced in computation of capital gain tax.Is it mean the CBDT is above Supremecourt.
In the same logic, when Supreme court has struck down one DoPT instruction 3.3.2008 wef 27-11-2012 ie it operative from 27-11-2012 only . Without understanding the legal position, every one wants to take advantage from the judgement by requesting to to adopt retrospectively. Suppose, if it was delivered negatively, then also the demand will be same. NO DEFINITELY NOT. Every one will request to give prospective amendment. My dear brothers, let the Government do its job and you serving employees work for the nation first. The DoPT has rightly taken a decission by issuing separate guidelines 4.3.2014. Do not try for undue advantage but try for implement the rule uniformely in all states. Try to understand the intention of the legislature.
Really.... provisos relating to confirmation and seniority as contained in 1959 OM were struck down by Supreme Court in the year 1986.Then in our department issue was waged upto Apex Court again. The great DOPT openly said that this judgement is prospective (OM 4-11-1992), unlike the word applicable interpretation now used. Difficult to implement, prospective etc., blah.blah... what happened? Apex Court said neither you nor DOPT have any business to term our judgement prospective.. We declare it when we intend to do so.... No point in bringing illogical tax cases in this context...
Post a Comment