ITEF and ITGOA participated in a meeting with DGIT(HRD) yesterday regarding implementation of Parmar judgement. Some more inputs in this regard are to be obtained and it was decided to finalize the issue on the next meeting on 11th December 2013.
Read the ITEF version in this regard :
"On our persistent demand and discussions with the Chairperson and Member (P&V), for withdrawal of the Instructions issued by the CBDT on 15th October, 2013 and issuance of clear instructions to CCAs regarding the manner of implementation to bring about uniformity in the matter in all Charges, a meeting of ITEF and ITGOA representatives were convened by the DGIT (HRD) and other Officials on 3rdDecember, 2013.
View the CBDT letter dated 15.10.2013
In the meeting broad consensus were reached on many of the points to implement the Judgement. In order to convey a clear cut and uniform instructions to the CCAs, the meeting felt that some more details are to be obtained from various agencies of the Government/sections of CBDT etc. and decided to meet again on 11th December, 2013 to finalaise the issue. We are hopeful that the matter will be resolved in the said meeting and proper instructions issued thereafter to CCAs to implement the judgement in a uniform manner in all Charges and in all Cadres."
Read the ITEF version in this regard :
"On our persistent demand and discussions with the Chairperson and Member (P&V), for withdrawal of the Instructions issued by the CBDT on 15th October, 2013 and issuance of clear instructions to CCAs regarding the manner of implementation to bring about uniformity in the matter in all Charges, a meeting of ITEF and ITGOA representatives were convened by the DGIT (HRD) and other Officials on 3rdDecember, 2013.
View the CBDT letter dated 15.10.2013
In the meeting broad consensus were reached on many of the points to implement the Judgement. In order to convey a clear cut and uniform instructions to the CCAs, the meeting felt that some more details are to be obtained from various agencies of the Government/sections of CBDT etc. and decided to meet again on 11th December, 2013 to finalaise the issue. We are hopeful that the matter will be resolved in the said meeting and proper instructions issued thereafter to CCAs to implement the judgement in a uniform manner in all Charges and in all Cadres."
2 comments:
Every one is requesting to implement the NR permar case with regard to interse seniority amongst direct recruites and promotees: but how and why,
Since 1986, how many vacancies were identified in each cadre and in the same year and when the CBDT has sent requisition to the SSC with the same number of vacancies identified and whether it was sent in the same year or in the later year. Next how may vacancies were advertised by the SSC and whether the SSC has advertised in the same year in which the vacancies were identified or in the next year. Next issue with regard to be observed how many vacancies were advertised and how many candidates were recruited and appoointed. Is there any excess candidates were appointed beyond advertised vacancies by SSC of that particular batch and if so the excess appointed candidates are legally appointed within the frame of Article 14 and 16(1) constitution of India.
These are the main issues have to be observed to implement the NR permar case. The Honorable Supreme Court has has catagorically crystalised this issue by linking with the advertised vacancies to the requisition sent with identified vacancies of the year and in the same year altogether to be commenced one and the same.
hence without obtaining those data since 1986, is it possible to settle the position on by unsettling again after 25 years and when there was no fault with the officials and if to so still to unsettle the settled position by infringement of fundamental rights of the employees whose main sources is salary.
There was no ambiguity in the DoPT OMs dated 7.2.86 and 3.7.86 and 3.3.2008. In NR permar case, the facts are: the revenue has identified the inspector post vacancies in the year 1993 and opined that they belongs to promotees and called for DPC in the same year.But again it opined that those vacancies were belongs to DRs and immediately sent to Board in the year 1993 itself and the Board has sent requisition to SSC in the year 1993 and the SSC has also advertised those vacancies only in the same year 1993. Thus all the department process was completed in the same year since from the begining ie in 1993 only. At this juncture, the Supreme court has distinguished the period of promotion by DPC and SSC. Generally DPC will take one or 2 months. whereas SSC may take 2 years. In that circumstances, the Supreme court ruled the position with respect to take seniority to DRs from the date of notification but not from the date of their appointment in the department.In such scenario, the Supreme court has opined that DoPT clarification OM dt.3.3.2008 is not applicable to the facts of that case.Because, the entire process was of the same year ie 1993 only. That does not mean to say DoPT OM dt.3.3.2008 is devoid of any merit. For example, if we take the SSC notification 2005, the CBDT has sent requisition to the SSC on February 2007 to recruit Inspectors of 808 posts but the SSC has recruited those candidates form its notification dated June 2005 instead of advertising on or after February 2007 by violating the Article 14 and 16(1) constitution of India. For this particular case DoPT has issued OM with regard to how to treat this> it said that future vacancies were filled before it arises and those candidates were to be put enblock below all the promotees of that year when they were actually reported to duty in the department in the respective state.
As such, there was no requirement for the doPT to issue a fresh guideliness. The DoPT's OM are in sound. The problem is with us by creating unnecessary situations by interpreting the Oms and judgements. Request that do work peacefully and increase revenue targets for the nation and do not waste time with interpreting the OMs and court decisions. work for the country.
Post a Comment