In a recent judgement CAT, Lucknow Bench passed an order in favour of direct recruit Inspectors. In line with the apex court judgement in the case of N.R. Parmar, CAT directed Income Tax dept. to recast the seniority according to recruitment year criteria.
Click here to view the order
Click here to view the order
36 comments:
Without bringing true facts of the vacancy position by the applicants are misleading the CATs by taking the shelter of NR permar case. In the said notification SSC has advertised only 5 vacancies in the cadre incometax inspectors but recruited 813 inspectors. For the year 2005, the CBDT has intimated to the SSC for 5 vacancies only. Hence upto 5 vacancies, the seniority recons from 2005. But with regard to 808 vacancies, the CBDT has created additional incometax inspector posts in the month of February 2007 for which the SSC has selected from the 2005 notification. Neither DPC could not conduct future vacancies nor the recruting agency like SSC has select future vacancies without advertisement. The promotees of 2005 to 2007 can easily challenge this order in High court that No recruiting agency including Chief Justice of India could appoint persons without advertising in the public domain and its violate article 14 and 16 of the constitution of India. The Supreme court in the recent judgement in the case of Assam Public service commission and renue & others and also recently the Delhi High court has also ruled that excess recruited beyond advertised vacancies are not supposed to continue in service and should be removed from service and the appointment is illegal. The AP High court has given verdict on this point and allowed 5 inspectors are only eligible to get seniority from 2005. Please follow the AP High court order in WP.No.33408/2013 dated 5-12-2013. Challenge on the ground of infringement of Fundamental rights under article 14 and 16 of constitution of India.
How the Staff Selection commission has select for the posts created in 2007 from the 2005 notification and more over without any receipt of requisition from the board by the time of submission of application ie 21-04-2006. (Main exam notification 18th march 2006). When there was no vacancy except 5 for the year 2005,how these DRs are eligible to get seniority from 2005. It is a clear case of vigilance.Refer this matter to CVC and CBI for investigation. Some of the DRs are employees in other government organisations and after technical resignation from the erstwhile department they have joined in this department in the year 2008 then how the notional seniority could be given from 2005 and how seniority could be given in both the departtment simultaneously. Why the CCIT(CCA) are not bringing the factual position before the CATs. ie all the CCIT(CCAs) are corrupted in favor of DRs of this 2005 batch because they know their appointment is totally illegal. Not bringing true facts before the CATs/courts is also attracts clear case of vigilence . Complain to the CBI and High courts.
Staff Selection Commission is not exempted by the constitution of India that without advertising the exact number of vacancies to be recruited by just simple saying the vacancies may increase or decrease. This type of riders are not allowed by the Supreme court in the recent judgement on January 2013 in the case of Meghala Public service commission and Renue &others in February 2014. Hence appointees beyond advertised vacancies are not supposed to continue in service. When the appointment is a question then how the seniority point comes. The promotee employees of all the states are wakeup and file writs against the CATs order.
The petitioners have misleaded the CAT Lucknow bench by saying that they have recruited against the vacancies of 2005 from SSC notification 2005 despite the fact that the SSC has advertised 5 vacancies only and selected candidates against the vacancies of 2007 from 2005 notification. When there was no vacancy in all India for the year 2005 except 5 vacancies and in all India additional inspectors posts were created in 2007 for which No advertisement and even in 2005 advertisement there was no vacancies except those 5 and how the remaining 808 candidates are eligible to get seniority from 2005 despite their appointment is illegal in terms of the public employment by not giving equality of opportunity to the eligible graduates of 2006 and 2007 .
What about the illegal recruitment of 2008 batch claiming 2005 seniority? Parmaar case will not be applied to them.
lastly, better for recast seniority of L.D.C., UDC and other DR as well as DR ITI on tbe basis of 1986 Rules of DR and PR for relevant select list.
Even if the CAT Lucknow Bench Order is considered (which is based on the case of NR Parmar) the DRs recruited through 2005 exam are to be adjusted with the promotee Inspectors of the Recruitment years 2006-07 to the extent of vacancies reported. Rest of the excess dossiers is to be adjusted against the vacancies arising in future. The Constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajit Singh Juneja & Others Vs State of Punjab [(1999) 7 SSC 209] has observed as under. The said observations of the Hon’ble SC are squarely applicable in the present situation:-
“It is axiomatic in service jurisprudence that any promotions made wrongly in excess of any quota are to be treated as adhoc. This applies to reservation quota as much as it applies to direct recruits and promotees cases. If a court decides that in order only to remove hardship such roster-point promotes are not to face reversions, then it would, in our opinion be, necessary to hold consistent with our interpretation of Articles 14 and 16(1) that such promotes cannot plead for grant of any additional benefit of seniority flowing from a wrong application of the roster. In our view, while courts can relieve immediate hardship arising out of a past illegality, courts cannot grant additional benefits like seniority which have no element of immediate hardship. Thus, while promotions of excess of roster made before 10.02.1995 are protected, such promotes cannot claim seniority. Seniority in the promotional cadre of such excess roster-point promotes shall have to be reviewed after 10.02.1995 and will count only from the date on which they would have otherwise got normal promotion in any future vacancy arising in a post previously occupied by a reserved candidate.”
The above-mentioned observation of Hon’ble SC are relied only to the limited extent that appointment/promotion in excess to the prescribed quota would be treated as adhoc. Such appointees/promotees cannot plead for grant of any additional benefit of seniority flowing from wrong application of the roster. In other words, appointment in excess to the roster will not give such appointees seniority because necessary future adjustment are required to be made for aligning excess appointments wrongly given earlier.
Most of the direct recruitee came from other departments after giving technical resignation therefore it is complete illegal to give double seniority i.e. from 2005. Please do something otherwise the IRS lobby playing game with us.
Can any one upload the copy of employment news in which the advertisement of vacancy of Inspector of Income tax for the SSC CGL 2005 was notified? it will be helpful for filing a case in all over India.
Dear PR'S,
. The requisitions for 58 vacancies was sent on 2004-05 & 05-06, while for 759 vacancies in 06-07. We have the correspondence between CBDT& SSC for that. It is you promotees who are occupying wrongly DR positions by underreporting DR vacancies. We have won the battle in CAT and will get our due. You people will be losers if you don't allow us our seniority. You will retire as nobody. We Dr's have been selected through competition but you are through compassionate appointment or through corruption etc. You have grown old. The department needs fresh and young blood. Please take VRS. Thankyou.
It is learnt from the reliable sources 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 in the cadre of Inspectors and TA from vacancy year 1986-87 and onwards (2001-02 in the case of TAs) in tabulation 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 the All Addl.CsIT (H.Qrs.) to prepare seniority lists accordingly.
Respected Sirs...Dont worry about illegal appointment of 2005 DR ITI. The exam was conducted through CGLE-2005 and it was for all staff of excise, Customs, Cabinet secretariat service and all other services...Further the DR ITIs who are applicant in SC in NR Parmar case has also joined through SSC and they had NIL vacancy in their notification(But they have selected joined and fought upto SC from ZERO vacancy) ....Even all DR ITI recruited through SSC(from 1993 to 2012) has joined without any vacancy except 2005...So Hon'ble SC is already aware about the process of selection (as its applicant i.e DR ITI has joined from ZERO vacancy in notification)....Further all appointments through SSC in other departments also follow the same process...Please dont worry....Even though I am DR ITI, I request all the respected dignitaries to send all these Illegally appointed officials to home....Please do sth....
Y all challenging the DR of ITI can it is possible who joined and may be terminated what a foolish thought. You all who against the DR ITI,. Think you all also came on same procudure in UDC LDC post through SSC. Only waste your energy all want to fight for a long long period.
Recruitment of and subsequent appointment if Unadvertised posts is unconstitutional and illegal. Refer decision of Renu kumari - supreme court. 812 appointees to DR ITSs in 2005-06 hv to go home. That's final. No argument on this issue. That's final.
Everyone is talking of illegality of recruitment of 2005 batch, what about the illegal promotions being carried out without following the rota quota procedure over the last 20 years eating away the direct recruitment quota. Please look into how many promote inspectors have been promoted against the number of direct recruit vacancies and how many directs have been actually recruited.
Mitro ye acchi khabar hai ham sabhi PR ko CAT jana chaiye aur jo bhi PR LDC UDC or steno aaye hai unko bhi CAT ke order lana chaiye kyonki hame bhi is order ke according seniority jis bhi cadre me aayye hai us recruitment year me milegi.to ladne ki jarurat nahi hai CAT jao aur order le aao.
please fight against these new recruitment rules. how these can be implemented when existing employees were took their decisions according to existing recruitment rules and passed the exam. they did not leave this department inspite of being selected in another department as they were sure to get promotion.
Respected promotees what u think, all judges and lawyers in the supreme court are fool and these fact have not been brought to their notice. They are very well aware about the recruitment procedure.so don't try to drag the matter unnecessarily.
Respected DR only u r having brains. Is supreme court a fool to pass RENU KUMARI ORDER ?!!
We all promotee inspectors must bring the facts in the knowledge of hon'ble juduciary about the illegal recruitment of Direct ITIs and pray for justice to us by cancelling their appointment. There are so may case laws decided in Supreme Court. Be unite and come-forward respected PRs for the sake of justice. Aawaj do hum aik hai.
I think the DRs should be given seniority from their date of birth. right.
Respected DR Sahib every promotee ITI has also joined the department as UDC only after qualifying the SSC Exam. I know there is one cadre difference between them and you. But this is not a matter of such a big ego or proud. Dont treat such a petty issue as big. There are much more genius and intelligent people in the department like IRS lobbly but they dont have such a proud which you petty director inspectors have. If you treat promotee inspector such like this then you tell us what type of treatment you should be given by the IRS lobby. Think, time will come.
Ye jo bhi DR aur PR lad rahe hain...in sab ko Siachin m post karo with the Indian soldiers....so that they can have time enough to think about their duties n responsibilities. ...friends there are oodles of issues to fight on...but not this....respect eachother...
ALL THE INSPECTORS WHO ARE NOT RECRUITED THROUGH DIRECT RECRUITMENT(SSC) ARE REQUESTED TO RESPECT THE MERIT OF THE D.R INSPECTORS (AS THEY ARE NOT INSPECTORS ON MERCY LIKE PROMOTION AND COMPASSIONATE GROUNDS ETC.) AND LET THEM GROW NATURALLY, KEEPING THEIR LONG SPELL OF SERVICE AFTER BECOMING ITO,FOR WHICH YOU MAY LOOSE NOTHING EXCEPT YOUR GREEDY EGO. HOPE THE MERIT AND SKILLS OF THE D.R INSPECTORS WILL ENHANCE THE IMAGE OF THE DEPARTMENT FOR EVER. LONG LIVE THE MERIT.
When direct inspector will become Asstt. Commissioner they are also treated as on mercy as they did not qualified the Civil Services Exam directly conducted by UPSC.
Itna garoor baap re. I think respected DR you are so meritorious that you should be worshiped even more than God. God is petty in front of you. Aapke charno me sabhi promotee inspectors ka shat shat pranam. Hum sub including IRS lobby to aapke charno ki dhool bhi nahi hai. Jai ho.
Ha ha ha ..... back door entrants.......... corrupted souls want only pockets to grow.
Present justice is denied amongst promotees but it takes time to win the battle. Because the principles of natural justice have never lost in any courts. The DRs are opined that for 1993 notification also there was no mentions about advertised vacancies. This issue was not raised before the Supreme court by NR Permar and the reason is he was not given an opportunity to heard his case and he was given an opportunity in review petition but it was disposed off in the offline mode itself. More over, this point was never come across in any arguments from CAT to Supreme court. Please read all the judgements. There was no challenge about advertised vacancies. Except for incometax department and central excise, the SSC has used to advertise the number of vacancies in all the other departments. Why. ie there may be some understanding between the CBDT and SSC . Not only this, if the vacancies were advertised, then automatically reservation quota also to be mentioned. If not mentioned, then SSC has liberty to select as it choices. Who will bell the cat. When the Government is Blind and expecting the Supreme court to look after all this silly issues is totally tennable. The Ministries are doing employment scam, then officers in the department has to cooperate with them as they have no choice to rise voice. However, for promotion vacancies have to be mentioned in DPC minutes and at the same time for recruitment from public domain, the vacancies to be advertised is compulsory. If any one condition is not fulfilled, neither of them are eligible.
Oh my god.such words...
In so called DR se pucha jai ki illegal 850 vaccacies me itna garoor kyon.arre hamare samay me to sirf 8-10vacancies hi aati thi aur hamne to us samay ssc qualify kiya tha agar hamare samay (1996 se 2004) me itni vacancy hoti to aaj ham kaha hote ye sochne ki baat hai ham kisi se kam padhe likhe nahi hai par deptt. Ki policy ke marre hai.
The order of CAT LUCKNOW is ex parte and one sided n true facts hv not been brought before the Court. So nothing new. Likely to be challenged.
so far with the serving promotee employees only the ITEF has stand and with a greateffort put by the ITEF, the CBDT has created additional manpower in the department both in the year February 2007 and in 31st march 2014. The DR are telling the PRs to retire by VRS. So far the total budject achieved by the department with the 90% help from promotees only but not by the DR ITIs for 2008. This is KALIYUGAM. Truth will come later but it stands after taking a little bit time. Next Promotees always occupies promotee quota only. The DR vacancies will be kept vacant and is to be carry forward to the next year and on. If it carryforward to more than 2 years, then all the DRs reported in the year and occupies the carry forward vacancies have to put below the promotees of the year in which they join. If any wrong thing was done, courts will decide this issue. For SSC notification 2005, there was no under reporting by the CBDT. The CBDT has intimated the newly created posts to SSC in December 2006 and February 2007. The DRs who have come from the SSC notification 2006 and 2007 are eligible to get seniority in terms of NR permar case subject to advertised vacancies only but not with rider ( increase/decrease)what in para.No.33 of the NR permar judgement said. The recruitees of advertised vacancies are eligible.
Direct ITIs ko the compulsory retirement de deni chahiye taki department ka mahol theek ho, Govt. of acha revenue mil sake our faltu ke litigation me energy our time barbad na ho. Sabke bhale ke liye in chand direct ITIs ko yaha se nikalna bahut jaruri ho gaya hai. Be unite and do something please otherwise they make the department like hell.
Previously statewise SSC used to advertise and fill up vacancies. But after 2004 the state wise recruitment was changed to all India recruitment and hence, the CBDT is used to send requisition to SSC and also according to the government policy and ban on recruitment from 2001 to 2005, all back log vacancies were obtained and abolished by the Ministry of Finance and the same were intimated to state wise. After that only created additional man power from IRS cadre to MTS cadre with cabinet approval in December 2006 and intimated to states and SSC in February 2007. To conduct DPC for promotee vacancies, the vacancies are to be crystalised and intimated to DPC committee and eligible selected list has to be prepared and it has to be passed by DPC.
In the same way for public employment, the vacancies/posts to be recruited has to be advertised. There is no option with the government to recruit candidates beyond advertised vacancies. If still there are vacancies to be filled up, the govt shall advertise again for such number of posts but without giving equality of opportunity it could not recruit. This is settled legal principle and it is binding principle to be followed by Chief Justice of India. May be the mistake done by SSC was not challenged so far before High court or Supreme court that does not mean the SSC has doing right thing. example 1993 inspector seniority was setlled in 2012. In the same way, whether SSC is doing right thing or wrong thing will be settled by 2020. this period may reduce if this litigation is spped up in courts.
It is good work and many times it happens that the problems related exam always take a big place and went to court. At present time we saw that stay was on UPP vacancies for the merit. It becomes important to show all the details online.
Advertising Company in Lucknow
in all these posts, one common question is that how SSC selected candidates through exam. for which advt. was published during 2005. those time exam. pattern was conventional type and it took longer time to evaluate the answer sheets and prepare selected candidates list. In the advt. ssc always declare that number of vacancies reported in the Advt. may be increased or decreased depends on the confirmed no. of vacancies reported by the user dept. Hence, initially No. of vacancies (i.e.5) can be increased to 813. Besides, if a exam. process spills over up to next 3 years and all the vacancies reported in these years are filled up through the same exam process, there is no violation of any rules & regulation.
Post a Comment