It is learnt that CBDT is working on issuance of clarification about implementation of Parmar judgement. According to sources, the date of communication of vacancy to SSC will be treated as the effective date, irrespective of the vacancy year. If the vacancy is due to earlier year, that has to be ignored. A detailed clarification in this regard is expected soon.
Regarding allocation of posts, no confirmed news is available till date.
Regarding allocation of posts, no confirmed news is available till date.
55 comments:
this is the totally injustice to promottee. it clears that who have not born they will senior to all promottee of that vacancy year who already most seniormost in age, experience, length of service etc. in same cadre
and what about the direct IRS officers they also get their seniority fron the date of notification as well.
Than promotees should go to supreme court for mercy petetion or should go to parilament to pass a bill aginst the order of supreme court.
K.N.Purushothaman, Kochi
The reasons for all these problems are administrative apathy. The authority should have instructed for a uniform dealing of the case. The question is regarding the seniority of Direct recruits, whether it should be from the date of occurrence of vacancies, date of intimation vacancies, date of joining the post etc..etc.... The best and legitimate option is date of joining the post. Otherwise, one may get his seniority, sometimes even before he qualifies the eligibility test, and even when he may be working elsewhere or when he continue with his studies. This seems not at all right.
It is totally injustice if Parmar case is implemented from the date of communication of vacancies to the SSC as the candidates may be minor and non graduate on that date from which seniority will be counted. CBDT/promottees
should file review petition/or other legal action against the order of Supreme court.
AKS
Thank God ! It is not from date of birth of direct recruits. It is totally injustice with the promotees.The h'ble Supreme Court should must be reviewed its own judgment for the sake of real justice as well as faith and honour in judiciary.
It is already clear that N R PARMAR is case specific and cannot be applied to other direct recruits. DOPT has already stated before numerous judicial forum that practice of giving antedate seniority is discontinued.
Absolutely correct.
SSC 2005 batch, the origion of dispute for which indent of confirmed number of manpower requirement (increasing more than 400 % in comparision with origional indent) sent to SSC was in 2007. Then what will be the benefit for 2005 batch (most of them joined in 2008), hardly a year which also get neutralised when this case law applied for al DRl cadres (PRs also were DRs in one or the other cadre.
Not going for review in SC is the decision of beaurocrats in DoPT or MoLaw because they want to have edge over PRs in Gr.A cadre. Moreover, In case of UPSC, the period of recruitment process is almost uniform in all the years where as it is not so in SSC that results in making junior of much latter years becoming senior to an experienced serving PRs. Conduct rules of GoI prohibits its employees from engaging in another employment (most candidates employed in govt.or private are getting employment). All these factors are not properly represented before SC.ITGOA treated DR ITIs as their member and did encourage & guide at each stage when the matter was in judicial process. ITEF remained as a mute spectator throughout. It didn't demand for review. Working class Jindabad - only in words.
I feel NR Parmar issue is a principle laid down and not favourable to DR...Hon'ble SC has not given any judgement rather reminded the administration thatthe seniority of Dr ITI & PR ITI should be fixed as per the guidelines i.e DOPT OM dated 07.02.1986...which no CCA was following....hence at some places the wrong method followed in the system is need to be rectified...and Hon'ble the SC has done the same....Both DR and PR has put their view at SC...and now the judgement has come....still we want to delay....God Bless the attitude of all...
this is disgusting why promotees after working so many years and obtaining requisite eligibility they will suffer.
Date of joining cannot be criteria for DRs. Why should they suffer for administrative delay. For seniority of DRs ,year of holding exam may be considered since before exam one has to fulfill all eligibility conditions.
I Think most of the promotees has not read the order and writong on presumption basis. When requisition was made none was no elligible or under graduate. Since in the department no regular appointment to DR ITI were made, most of the promotees occupies the places of DRs and feeling the right that DRs should be ignored for their due rights.
ये सब समय कि बरबादी है.
Some of the departments even not giving seniority from the date of joining...see the case of aao erstwhile so of indian audit and accounts departments. ..u guys are lucky....
ON THE ABOVE, GOVT. OF INDIA SHOULD INSTRUCT THE SSC FOR SELECTION WITHIN THE TIME FRAMES SIMILARY DPC WILL BE CONVENED AS LIKE THE MOST REPUTED UPSC'S. THAN ALL PROBLEMS WILL BE SOLVED OTHERWISE NOTHING TO BE SOLVED. THE JUSTICE OF HON'BLE SC IS TOTALLY BASED ON RULES WHICH IS DIRECTLY EFFECTS TO PROMOTTEES BECAUSE THE WORK AND LESS INTEREST FOR FILLING OF THE VACANCY IN LOWER POST EXCEPT UPSC POST IS VERY POOR. THEREFORE, LATE DPC IS DONE, NO TIME FRAME IS RULED.
Gupta. I hope promotion to the post of ITO and ITI should be given immediately subject to clear cut instrutions for implementation of decision of Apex Court's decion on parmar case without any further delay.
we are fighting but actually we should try to first implement the cadre restructuring otherwise one day it will be stopped by the coming govt...
No one is talking about injustice with inter chargee. If for any unavoidable reason an employee needs inter charge transfer...the department puts a rediculous condition before him...put off all your clothes..your underwear...your shoes...and go wherever you want to go...that employee is treated as a step son..brother....shame on department and shame on union who never raise their voice for the interchargee....a big shame....
promotee friends do not lose heart. NR parmar case is not applicable to 2005 DRs. we are in touch with AP ITEF where they have won the case in High Court and DPC has been conducted this month. But for 5 candidates all the other selected candidates are surplus hence if they insist on seniority they are in serious trouble . Association(s)of respective states be in touch with AP association. We all will fight it out. All the best and let us fight for our right. Central Head quarters leaders are doing nothing, rather they do not know anything. All this mess is because of them.
SSC conducted cgl in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2008.
Why the sudeen surge in the vacancies for 2005 ? Because of undue delay in recruitment process , the requisition advanced accomodating future vacancies as well. Was post 2005 vacancies inclded by CBDT in final requisition for 2005 recruitment which should have included either in 2006 or in 2008. All of sudden unimaginable increase in requisition makes one to presume all these.
As already stated above it is crystal clear that N R PARMAR case is not applicable to any DRs except 93 94 DR of gujarat which now is also subject matter if dispute as requisition was sent by CCIT ahmedabad in june 1994 and not during 93-94 as stated before S.C. seniority fixation is in the domain of DOPT.n not HRD.
As you sow so shall you reap. You didn't want the vacancies intimated well in time which means you wanted to suppress the vacancies. but sadly there was one clause in the O M of 1986 to fend off your evil designs. Again you people didn't want to interpret the O.M. against your interest but you did't realise that there is the supreme court of India to give a correct interpretation of the law of the land. Now you have been cornered, so better to give up and accept your wrongdoings gracefully.
All the respected officials commenting here are not focusing...what are the guideline laid down by the Nodal authority of GOI i.e DOPT for following the principle while fixing the seniority of DR & PR...Are all CCA following these guideline..???? If, no then should these guideline i.e OM dated 07.02.1986 should be followed or not....Let us not be partial...and SSC never gives vacancy before any CGL Exam...in 2005 only it had given 05 vacancy with a clause that "FIRM NUMBER OF VACANCY WILL BE DETERMINED IN DUE COURSE"and all the SSC Notification from 1994 till 2012 is ready to defend, still you may try...Respected Sirs, awaken now....Money can buy any anything...you can manage all except SC...All the Best....
regarding the 2005 batch, the Hon'ble SC has queshed the clarification 03/03/2008 on which the seniority of 2005 batch based. It is worth while to mention the supreme court quashed the same even when the controversy was old and this was not applicable to 93-94 batch. The judges of S.C. are not fool. They decided the matter in Rem. Once the clarification 03/03/2008 is queshed, the seniority of 2005 can not be fixed on the basis of date of joining. How so much people of the department who has day to day judicial work can not understand such simple thing. That only shows that either most of the promotees are illiterate or they are totaly biased towards Direct recruit Inspectors. And since they are in majority, the associations are favouring them. But all should remember on thing that none i.e. CBDT, CCAs or association are obove and over the judiciary. Thats why CBDT is forced to take steps towards implementation of the same.
I pity the who feel they are literate. U U will not get seniorty from 2005 come what may. U cannot understand the judicial decisions pity u. Here the SSC has advertised the vacancy 5 if it wanted to increase the vacancy it should have issued corrigendum . It has not done so. Please do not day dream of getting undue seniority. If u can read understand go through N number decisions. I pity that u do not know that CBDT cannot any decision on this it is DOPT who has to take the decision. V will give u finishing touch shortly in SC. JUST WAIT AND WATCH.
It means one's date of birth also should be reckoned right from the date of conception, not from the actual day that he/she was born...this seems to be the logic....
Honourable SC in its ruling insisted the implementation of 1986 OM . We don't have doubt on it. We have only one doubt that how the vacancies created in the cabinet on 02.11.2006 and intimated to CBDT on 20.11.2006 is included in the selection process of 2005. Thes vacancies were created after the closing date for SSC 2006. The creation of new vaccancies alone is the reason for sudden spurt. This should have gone to SSC2008 as there are possibilities that some of the candidates as on creation of new posts in November, 2006 became overaged since the crucial date is not beyond closing date for receipt of application.
Once the vaccancies itself created after date of notification and the validity of inclusion of these newly created posts is under question, the fixation of seniority from date of notification is not justifiable. May be in arithmatical operation two negatives become a positive in the product, certainly not in policy matters. Now the candidates selected on the basis of SSC2005 in the vaccancies created in November, 2006 have already enjoyed couple of years of service as bonus. Now these frieds say promotees are illiterate (thanks) and asking PRs to go for a mercy petition. It is not lawful, only laughable. Now, I request my PR friends who gained wisdom by experience to show some mercy towards those DR friends .
1 st take fruits of restructuring, then fight for justice
contempt of court case filed in supreme court against the N R Parmar case, date of case fixed on 19 jan 2014....
Group B aur group C apas me ladai karo kapde direct IRS sambhalenge aur maja lenge phokat me. Kab akal ayenge. JAI HIND.
Chaos everywhere
fundamental principle to be observed by any government recruiting agency that they have to advertise the exact number of vacant posts that they are going to recruit candidates in the public domain before closing the admission of application from the people of India and if otherwise filledup by backdoor open it leads infringement of FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS under ARTICLE 14 and 16(1) of constitution of india
The Staff selection Commission in the Cobined Graduate Level exam notification 2005(prilims) and 2006(main)advertised 5 incometax inspector posts but recruited 813 candidates is nothing but violating the Article 14 and 16(1) of the constitution of India since so many Andhra and Telangana people have LOST their opportunity to appear for the said exam only on the ground that the advertised vacancies are only 5 but whereas SSC has recruited 813 candidates IS NOTHING BUT INFRINGEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS. I think, No High court or Supreme court has observed this otherwise the honorable courts may have taken up this issue suomoto. Gross injustice was happened to both Andhra and Telangana students.I am very sorry.
Good to know that contempt case has been filed in Hon'ble SC. Let us ascertain whether we can implead so that we can seek clarification/plead for justice before Hon'ble SC
Friends instead of fights amongst ourservles let us solve the problem
Absolutely correct. Please file PIL in Hon'ble S.C. to declare 817 - 5 i. e 812 post as illegal recruitment n dossiers of DR ITIs returned to SSC for deployment elsewhere.
Take P I L route to Supreme Court
No vacancy was published in 1993 exam and in 1996 or 1999 or 2006, 2008, 2010, 2011 and 2012. SSC always publish that firm no. of vacancies wiil be decided in due course. Most of the time Pre exam is published in anticiapation of vacancies and vacancies of related R.Y. are asked till the last moment. It is very importannt to mention here that date of advertisement is not a criteria and order of SC has not delevered the decision on the basis of date of advertisement. If vacancies of 2005 are to be considered illigal than all recruitment of from 1993 of direct quota is illigal ans of promotees also as there was clear under reporiing of vacancies of DRs. The illetrate people are only discussing for 2005 batch as they in the frame only for their legal right.
The above comment is baseless. For 2005 CLGE clear cut 05 vacancies of ITIs were mentioned. Please go through the advt once again. Do not try to misguide for yr own gains. Ante date seniority is discontinued. Please refer to various other S.C. judgements.
hhhhhh
As per the principle of quota of pr: dR IS 2:1. And if only 5 vacancy were ther for dr. then only 10 pr should have been promotted to iti in 2005 all over india. So all the excess pr of 2005 and latter respective years should be demotted to their feeder cadre before promotion to iti. Is it not just and fair?
Are we here to fight each other? is the administrative delay is caused due to DR candidate. why will they suffer for delay and under reporting by the department/govt. Pls follows 2:1 principle for all the recruitment year. I hope there should not be any problem to a just n fair Dr and PR.
As per the principle of quota of pr: dR IS 2:1. And if only 5 vacancy were ther for dr. then only 10 pr should have been promotted to iti in 2005 all over india. So all the excess pr of 2005 and latter respective years should be demotted to their feeder cadre before promotion to iti. Is it not just and fair?
In any RY, the number of PRs retired is 6 in number, then reserving 2 out of these 6 vacancies for DR would result in overallotment to DR. Hence, comparing number of promotion given to PR in any particular RY can not be compared with the vacancies reserved for DR. As the ratio of PR and DR is 2:1 and PR ITIs are retiring much earlier to DR, often PR vacanies arise. The more retirement of PRs in any particular RY, the more promotion to PR.
Dear DRs friends, Pl. read para 2.2 of DOPT's OM No.2/8/2001-PIC dated 16.05.2001. It will give you answer for so called under reporting vacancy for DRs....Not only that some DRs of CGLE 2005 were declared as surplus and adjusted only vide CBDT's F.No. A-12021/02/2008-Ad.VII dated 9th March, 2009.
Dr. PR then how you forget to read the root OMs of DOPT of 1986 for distribution of seats between DR and PR and fixing of seniority. And also it is nature's law 'Those who came earlier has to go earlier'.
Where were you my friends. youshould have been in the ITGOA to advise them why they are not putting the same logic to DOPT in the case of promotion to ACIT from ITEF jindabad.
This matter can now be solved by shri arvind kejriwal only.
Nobody should be given seniority before a date one join the department. This will solve all problems.
K.N.Purushothaman, Kochi
if one gets very happy to get promotion by delaying/under reporting of DRs vacancies then he should not cry when the victim DRs at least gets their original seniority.
Correct and well said.
You will realise it when you get retired and find that appointment letter of your son is getting delayed by 5 years after the result is declared and without any fault of his. he is neither getting any salary nor seniority for promotion and one who had joined as TA as on declaration of the result of your son gets promoted to inspector one day before your son actually joins the department. If you don't realise even after this example, then you are helpless.
after the contempt in supreme court DoPT (who is also a party)is forced to issue a clarification of OM 07/02/1986 and 03/07/1986 instead of 03/03/2008. clarification is expected vety soon. Than all litigation will end and milk & wather will be seperated. till that time our PR friends can enjoy their seniority. good luck.
My dear DRs. u shd all be designated as "Dr." Because only u hv brains rest all including direct IRS are idiots. U shd know that DOPT has already given in writing in number of earlier cases that ante date seniority canot be given n is discontinued. Length of service is only the criteria determining seniority. Infact HRD is now coming up with a proposal to grant DRs a Ph.D doctorate.
Post a Comment