Dear Nithya,
You have rightly questioned why I have removed all the comments from the Punjab blog spot. Sir, I do not know whether you will believe or not but it is true that IP cadre is the most egoistic cadre. It is my bad luck that I am one of them. It is also fact that in Punjab blog some anonymous derogatory comments against Circle Secretaries and their members were being published particularly from Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra forcing me to block such comments. This was the only option left with me to chuck out such personal and cowardly acts. It is natural that ambitions flourish in every mind but on the other side of the coin there lies a fact that we should not try to skip the rope by tumbling down the significance of our senior and experienced counterparts. We should not keep eye on the enhanced and wrongly calculated vacancies for our selfish benefits. We should also not keep gradation list with us to locate our position and count the days ahead for getting promotion at the demise of our seniors----the lexis taken from the book “MY JOURNEY ON THE CHARIOT OF TIME”.
Moreover these days I am reading an Autobiography written by Sh. EM Samuel our former SSPOs (09826824981) that has given a true reflection of the mentality of the IP cadre. The memoir forwarded by Sh. G S Asiwal heightens, “The postal organization with democratic set up is run by bureaucrats whose mindset is autocratic and despotic like their British predecessors”. In fact we are a part of it. Analogous to the imperialistic empire, the capitalistic administration now-a-days is growing from roots to top not because of its efficiency but because of our immature thoughts that have made us merely a dormant extenuator within own cadre.
So I request you to go through the following tabulation carefully and find your position within, you will personally realize the difference.The calculation of vacancies should be as under. I do not know whether department will agree to it or not.
P S Group ‘B’ Post Position as per recruitment rule 1987 | Post earmarked for Sr. Postmaster as per Postmaster cadre recruitment rules 2010 | Post that should be in PS Group’B’ after creation of Postmaster cadre | ||||||
1. | Total Number of Posts | 866 | 2. | Total Number of Posts | 116 | 3. | Total Number of Posts | 866-116 =750 |
1.1 | NO. of 75% IP line post to be filled through Seniority cum fitness | 649 | No effect on 649 post as no amendment in recruitment rule 1987 | NIL | 3.1 | NO. of 75% IP line post to be filled through Seniority cum fitness | 649 | |
1.2 | NO. of 19% IP line post to be filled through LDCE | 165 | 2.1 | NO. IP line post to be filled through LDCE 75% of 116 | 87 | 3.2 | NO. of 19% IP line post to be filled through LDCE. | 165-87 =78* |
1.3 | NO. of 6% General line post to be filled through LDCE | 52 | 2.2 | No. of General line officials to be filled through seniority cum fitness | 29 | 3.3 | NO. of 6% General line post to be filled through LDCE | 52-29 =23* |
* The effect is due to postmaster cadre recruitment rules 2010
Present position of Post in view of recruitment rule 1987 and position after notification of postmaster cadre recruitment rules-2010
Total no. of Posts/post filled | 75% of 866 | 19%of 866 | 6% of 866 |
866 | 649 | 162/165 | Out of 52 post earmarked for General line officials 27 are working IN Group B and 25 vacancies are there. Otherwise 23 posts remained for promotion from general line for PS Group B and 29 posts have been earmarked for Sr. Postmaster Cadre. |
Vacancy position | DPC is being convened | 3 exam conducted | Already 4 excess in case no one opted for Sr. Postmaster cadre as 29 posts are to be filled through seniority cum fitness from HSG-1 officials having 2 years service. Since now exam for 25 vacancies has been conducted so the aspirants have to post as Sr. Postmaster. |
6 comments:
Sir, i am regular reader of your blog. i had gone through u r recent blog posted on 01/06, where in u had passed a remark against anonymous derogatory comments received on blog, but as per my suggestion, instead of completely blocking the comments u had right which comments to display / not to display...
its fully u r choice... i had just suggested it...
Manoj Salve
Dear Sir,
Nice analysis. But the following doubts/questions remain unanswered :-
1) Why the deductions of posts earmarked for Sr PM cadre has been done from the 19% quoto of IP line officials instead of total vacancies available for IP line officials (ie. 75+19% quota)for promotion to Gp B cadre...
2)Wait....... the above argument may be countered by saying that IP line officials can take the LCDE examination meant for promotion to Sr PM (for 75% vacancies)But honestly speaking No IP line official is willing to appear for the same is the real picture. (as evidenced from the option given by the IP Line existing PS Gp B officers) Sir, It is an universal truth that the person who after becoming an IP (Administrative officer) will never ready to work as Sr PM (Operative post not even supplied with Inspn vehicle).
2) The above point (1) is also supported with the fact that already there is an ambiguity in carving out of posts earmarked for Sr PM cadre (i.e Dept says that it will be done only from the post earmarked for Gen line officials quota but as per the above calculation (1.3) showed that there is only 52 posts available for carving out for Sr PM instead of 116 as announced by the Dept).
3)If the point No 1&2 above are correctly analysed then there will certainly be an increase in the IP line 19% vacancies.
4)Fourthly, the remarks "so the aspirants have to post as Sr. Postmaster" not at all correct as how can a genl line official selected through LCDE be posted as Sr PM? (since the rect rule of Sr PM cadre clearly stipulates that the Sr PM post earmarked for Genl line officials(25%) will be filled through seniority basis amongst the PM grade III officials only).
5) Even if go by your above assumption that selected officials
have to be posted as Sr PM, then will the dept apply the same logic/rule to those IP line officials (appeared & selected in the LCDE meant for Sr PM post)if they opted to be posted as Gr B officer (i.e Supdt of Postal Division or AD etc other than Sr PM???????. It is a million dollar question hung around us/department and any clarification in this regard will boast the confidence of those IP/ASP who are ready to appear for 2nd battle (i.e to appear for the Sr PM examination)
Sir, Please go through the blog of CHQ and read letter carefully. Our GS has not asked the department to cancel the LCDE rather given a solution to evaluate the marks out of 250. This is nothing but a direspect to our National Official Language. Instead of calculating the marks out of 250, it would be appropriate if Association asks the Department to cancel the LDCE 2011 and treat it null and void. It is not a mistake, but a blunder. We should protest it.
This action of GS to ask for common waiver of 50 marks for paragraph writing is not at all correct. As per rule, whenever there no instruction to write the answer in a particular language, the answer should be given only in the language in which the question was asked. In this case, the paragraph writing question was asked only in english and hence the candidate is expected to write the answer in English only which was followed by the CMC at Delhi centre. As such is the rule's position how can one expect to cancel the 50 marks awarded to paragraphs for all???? Yes,the argument of the GS is not a mistake but a blunder.The GS is GS for all comrades including those who have not written the paragraphs in Hindi. What the GS would tell to who have written the paragraphs excellently in English and expecting the result?????? Please think,,,,,
CS Punjab circle- please allow this comment to be published as no other blog are publishing the above comment including our CHQ blog. This comment is neither a derogatory one nor written in disrespectful manner.
Respected nithya,
I respect intelligent officer like you and wish you all success in life.However from legal point of view I clarify the following.
The deduction of post earmarked for Sr. PM can be possibly made from 75% quota after amending PS Group B recruitment rule 1987 otherwise not.As per postmaster recruitment rules 2010, which also run contrary to earlier rule as mentioned rightly by you, all the 87 Sr. PM post earmarked for IP line are to be filled through LDCE otherwise for natural justice the ratio of Promotion: LDCE should be 50:50 and not 100% as done presently. In view of this if department tries to disturb the post in 75% quota then the department will have again to amend the postmaster recruitment rule 2010
AS regards point 4 & 5 legally you are absolutely right.But since the department conducted the exam in a hurry and without going through the pros and cons and they will adjust them in their quota after taking optio. But they can not take even a single post from 75% OR 19% quota and dept. will have to adjust General line pass out with in 52 posts or let them create supernumerary posts that may not be possible.However dept can post the junior Group B officer as Sr. Postmaster without option and they can be adjusted in PS Group B as and when vacancy arise. Why we should worry let the officers sitting at the helm of affair to apply their brain.In case any deviation of rule is found Punjab will again file a case, rest assure.
Respected Manoj Salveji,
I have great regard for you and you also know that you are best friend of mine.I respect your sentiments. Sir, I will publish all the comments posted with name through Google account. Sir some juniors had actually used derogatory language on the blog particularly when I am fighting for justice for all and sundry. Any way I have done that such officials deserve.
Post a Comment