"We write this with reference to the above referred communications of the Board to the Cadre Controlling Authorities in the matter referred to in the subject. It has come to our notice that the Department of Personnel & Training has provided further opinion in File DOR.F.No. C-18015/37/2014-V&L dated 01.05.2014 with regard to the implementation of the Supreme Court judgement cited. Vide Boards communication in F No. HRD/CM/220/14/2013-14/513/2014-Ad.VII dated 13.3.2014 the Cadre Controlling Authorities were required to implement the Supreme Court Judgement as per the general instructions issued by the DOPT OM dated 04.03.2014 without providing any specific guideline to be adopted for the same. The present opinion provided by the DOPT is on the references made by the Board based on the points of doubt/clarification raised by various Cadre Controlling Authorities. ......."
See the full text of the letter
See the full text of the letter
20 comments:
ITGOA HAS NOW INVOLVED THE SUPPORT IF ITEF IN N R PARMAR MATTER. IT KNOWN FAR AND WIDE THAT ITGOA INTENTIONS ARE SELFISH AND SELF CENTERED. ITGOA WANTS TO FURTHER CAREER AND PROMOTION PROSPECTS IF ITS MEMBERS BY RUINING AND DESTROYING THE CAREER OF PROMOTEE OFFICERS. HOW PATHETIC AND DISGUSTING. NOW AFTER SEEING ALL THESE PROMOTION ORDERS OF DIFFERENT PR.CCITs NATION WIDE RIGHTLY WITHOUT CONSIDERING NR PARMAR DECISION THEY HV RESORTED TO TAKE HELP OF ITEF. ITGOA THINKS THAT ITEF MEMBERS ARE
FOOLS TO ALLOW THEIR CAREER TO BE DESTROYEF.
ALL ITEF MEMBERS PLEASE UNITE TO DEFEAT THE EVIL AND SELFISH DESIGNS IF ITGOA AND ENSURE THAT N R PARMAR DECISION IS MADE APPLICABLE TO APPLICANT AND RESPONDENT IF GUJARAT 93 94 ONLY AS N R PARMAR IS NOT APPLICABLE TO ILLEGALLY APPOINTED DR ITIS OF 2005-06 AND IF AT ALL N R PARMAR IS IMPLEMENTED THEN RENU KUMARI AND RAJEEV MOHAN IS ALSO IMPLEMENTED AT THE SAME TIME.
THIS IS DEMOCRACY AND OUR NEW PRIME MINISTER HAS ASSURED TO GOOD GOVERNANCE WITH EQUAL OPPORTUNITY.
ALL ITEF MEMBERS UNITE AND LIVE WITH SELF RESPECT AND DIGNITY AS ITEF MEMBERS ARE ALSO DIRECT RECRUITS IN THEIR RESPECTIVE CADRE AND DR.ITI S OF 2005-06 ARE NO SON IN LAW S OF DEPT.
Why is ITGOA taking help if ITEF ? Why ITGOA cannot approach CBDT in its own and "buy" another favourable opinion or OM.
ITEF MEMBERS BEWARE !!!
The clarification of DOPT dt 1.5.2014 states that 7.2.86 and 3 7 1986 shd be followed but it does not states as to how Unadvertised and unconstitutional appointees can be brought under the ambit of Parmar decision. What will then happen to S.C other relevant judgements.
Due to Election Duty, preparation for Departmental Promotion Examination should be postponed to the normal phase of its schedule. Hope the authority will consider this problem sympahetically.
No Comments from me....
...Let others Comment.
...and this is my last comment in this Blog..
....Let truth Prevails & Prevails everywhere...
Respected All...if I ever hurt you in any way through my post, I am sorry...All the Best...Let us create a good & positive vibration...
It is indeed great that out esteemed JCA and HRD had devised an advisory in the form of a “FAQ” that was supposed to be issued to the CCAs to maintain uniformity. Members of the the department will be highly obliged if the same is made public. It is a shame and disgraceful that the both the Board and the JCA have been maintaining double standard and beating around the bush. The CCAs have been directed to go with the present seniority list ignoring the latest clarification of the DOPT in connaivance with the JCA. This latest letter is the part of continuous effort by the ITEF not to revisit the seniority from 1986. Never be in confusion that ITGOA is taking the help of ITEF. The fact is that the ITEF wants to procastinate the issue for aa long as possible. That is why fifteen months have been wasted in the name of CR.Has any body b' to disagree with this? A member from ODISHA.
This illegal and unconstitutional recruitment of DR.ITI OF 2005-06 needs to be brought to the
attention of our
respected PRIME MINISTER who had already time and again assured of equal opportunity good governance and bring to his notice that how 85% of the appointments from SSC are from northern states excluding
GUJARAT. Does it mean that candidates fro gujarat are dull ? !!
oh oh sanjeet bro, take everything in a positive way. You should have thought before putting your comments. I really want to know you are posted in which CCA charge? Pl. God save that CCA charge......
It is very amazing that ITGOA of Bengal is so keen to see the only interest of direct Inspectors, The members of ITEF(promotee Insp) are getting other smell in it. While other state are making order of ITO's promotion as early as possible, here in bengal circle still waiting for clarification, as usual. LET THIS DIRTY THINGS BE STOPPED.
Why d director inspectors are liable to get seniority from date of publishing of adv or otherwise, while at that period many of them was holding the post in other department. Can any body enjoy two posts at a time.
Did they join in this dept. from other Dept. within 3 (three) months from the date of appointment letter, as per 1995 O.M.
Members don't ignore this. Don't make us fool. Consider this while preparing NEW GRADATION LIST.
Please solve the example in implementation of NR permar perfectly then comment on CCIT(CCA)s
A. DR Vacancies identified for the year 1993 in 1993 = 20 but not sent to SSC for recruitment in 1993
B. DR vacancies identified for the year 1994 30 in 1994 - total 50 vacancies were intimated to SSC in 1994. SSC advertised 50 vacancies in 1994 and all 50 joined in 1995
C. in the year 1993 6 surplus candidates and 2 inter charge transfers and 2 compassionate appointes were joined. In 1994 5 sports quota persons are joined.
D. 10 vacancies for the year 1995 identified in 1995 and sent to SSC in 1995 and SSC advertised the 10 vacancies in 1995 and they have joined in 1996.
E. In 1994, the Board has abolished the vacancies pertains to the 1993 as a govertnment policy which was kept for DR posts.
Please give the seniority of 50 candidates who have been selected from the SSC notification 1994
198 additional manpower in the cadre inspector were created in 2000. DPC was conducted in 2001 for 2/3rd of 198. balance 66 vacancies were intimated to SSC in 2000.Examination was conducted for 66 posts advertised. Later board has given relaxation as one time measure and the 66 vacancies were allotted for promotion. In 2001 30 additional posts were created and allotted for DR quota. SSC has selected 66 candidates and announced results in the year 2002 and after completion of formalities 40 candidates joined in 2002 and 26 joined in the year 2003. Please solve the seniority of DRs and promotees and then comment on CCIT(CCA) by the associations
the JCA is very much interested in implementation of NR permar judgement but they does not bother about recruitment rules of inspector cadre though the board has given allotment to all states on 31.3.2014 and they have never demanded about. What Rajgopalan is doing and what ashoksolanki is doing. are they belongs to ITEF or ITGOA. why they have paying much interest in NR permar case rather demanding for new recruitment rules for inspector cadre and also why they are not trying to insert one rule in the coming newly recruitment rules that No notional seniority could be given until born in the cadre either for promotees or for DRs. If it was there, DoPT instns 3.7.86 or 4.3.2014 is not necessary. Why the ITEF is not looking after this issue. Because they want litigation in the department should continue.
What clarification does JCA need ? DoPT gave clear directions in 4.3.2014 letter and Board gave clear directions to follow DoPT letter. Now what do you expect Board to tell. Can Board give a clarification, asking CCITs not to follow DoPT guidelines ? Learned JCA should tell.
A.P. friends told that this objection was brushed aside in that charge. Even lien is allowed once you shift job. What is the basis of such a stand? If such a rule is made, it is to be applied from CCIT( some of them joined as ACIT /then ITO A from other departments) to TA .. y only for inspectors?
No one is going into the real thing in NR permar decissions para No.33
1st parameter: The Supreme court has satisfied that not only the requisition sent in the year of vacancy arised but also the advertisement of those vacancies is also required in giving interse seniority
2nd parameter: None of the direct recruit Income Tax
Inspectors herein can be stated to be occupying carried forward vacancies, or vacancies which came to be filled up by a “later” examination/selection process.
When these 2 parameters are fulfilled for each year of vacancy from 1986, then only we could sanction seniority from the notification year subject to other conditions like DoPT 1995 instructions.
Without observing this main issue, every one is demanding give seniority from date of notification irrespective of vacancy year and irrespective of vacancies advertised.
Suppose SSC advertised 100 vacancies in 1998 and conducted examination for 100 vacancies. In the mean while it was identified that they are actually 50 vacancies only in 1998, 20 in 1999 and 30 in 2000. Please give seniority to the 100 selected candidates and also clarify whether the excess recruited beyond vacancies are legal or illegal. Here every one will say that the advertised vacancies are selected and where is the illegality. When vacancies advertised 5 and selected 800 then you are arguing that there is a rider that the posts may increase or decrease. Here also you argue about adjust the 795 candidates into year wise vacancies. Is it 3.7.86 DoPT said like that or NR permar said that like that. Read the law perfectly and ask the doPT
JCA-Association of Joint Conspiracy ...... bekar ka committee.. koi kam nehi...haram ka khana aur aaram ka safar... no work,full salary... dono secy. hi pakka du-numbarii..
When seniority fixation and consequential DPCs are being conducted in most parts of the country the ITGOA and ITEF hv got up frm their slumber sleep and adressing a letter to Chairman. Now when so.much water had passed under the bridge what will happen. So foolish and kiddish on part of JCA.
DO NOT TRY TO INTERPRET IN YOUR OWN WAY. IF REQUISITION WAS SENT AND RECRUITMENT WAS NOT COMPLETED IN THE SAME YEAR... THEN NRP IS NOT APPLICABLE.? THEN ON WHAT BASIS U FIX SENIORITY? WHAT IS THE OM WHICH GOVERNS SENIORITY IN SUCH A CASE? U R RHIGHT TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE IS NO SENIORITY IF VACANCY DOES NOT EXIST... BUT WHEN A VACANCY IS AVAILABLE AND UR RECRUITMENT PROCESS IS INITIATED... INITIATION MAY BE INTIMATING THE VACANCIES..BUT THE ENTIRE PROCESS OF RECRUITMENT WAS ALSO DISCUSSED BY APEX COURT.. GO THROUGH PARA 20 AND THE DOPT FILE NOTINGS DISCUSSED IN THE JUDGEMENT... THUS JUST BECAUSE ONE CCIT/CBDT DID NOT INTIMATE VACANCIES..DOES NT MEAN THAT UR RECRUITMENT PROCESS WAS NOT INITIATED, WHEN THE EXAMINATION ITSELF WAS CONDUCTED... REGARDING UR ARGUMENT ON ADVERTISED VACANCIES.. ALL THE BEST.. IN ANY CASE ATLEAST ONE CAT, BANGALORE THROWN AWAY THAT ARGUMENT ...
You are insulting AP high court and supreme court by saying that. Concept of advertised vacancies is prescribed by supreme court in NR Parmar case. Honble AP High Court also agreed to that. How can you use defamatory language like "blore cat THREW IT OUT". Beware, dont insult our courts.
Post a Comment