Before discussing pros and cons of both the court cases I have filed I am telling you an incident that had happened in Patiala Division. This is about plight of Sr. ASPs at the hands of Junior ASP allotted to Punjab, who in the year 2008 passed PSS Group “B” may be due to luck (not caliber) or any other mean (getting 100 out of 100 in paper II perhaps not otherwise possible) and posted as SPOs/Sr. Postmaster Patiala. I regret to inform you that one of such a passed Group “B” officer to settle his ego sealed the office of ASP Sub Dn. to defame him but in the name of search thereby creating fuss for our union. The issue was only resolved on my taking issue with the then DPS Chandigarh. Later on that ASPs was transferred to far flung place without completing his tenure. Now this Sr. ASP is no more in this world. Apparently these inconsistencies lead to ambiguity. It also elucidate that life cannot be lived under certain pre defined set of rules either by Jr. or Sr. because it consist of numerous complexities at social, physical and emotional level. One should be fare in official dealing after all we all are human beings.
Yes, Punjab IP/ASP Association filed two court cases and instrumental in filing fresh IPGP CAT case that have backing of CHQ and we do not have any excuse for it. Reason being:
LDCE roster was increased to 192 points from 165 points thereby declaring 32 vacancies (five were shown as vacancies in the 165 point roster). Please let me know which rule permits increase or decrease of the roster suo moto. Moreover, it was a great injustice to Sr. ASPs who were awaiting their promotion for the last 27 years. When examination system was not in vogue the promotion the PS Group “B” was 14 to 16 years. Apparently the present promotion is meaningless as 50% of IPs are not getting promotion to Group ‘B’ what to say of JTS/STS because of Examination and wrong calculations of vacancies.It is due to this CAT case that now not only in our cadre but in others also vacancies are calculated correctly as per roster.
My salute to Mr.M.Mohanarangam who filed CAT case in Tamil Nadu when with utter disregard to all principles, the department conducted Group B examination by bunching of vacancies for four years viz. 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006. This single selection for all the four years remains prejudicial to majority of the eligible candidates. The Department successfully conducted the examination and handed over many infirmities inconsistencies to the cadre. As a result many juniors who were not even eligible for the vacancies of 2004, 2005 and 2006 were allowed to appear, got selected and promoted getting golden chance even after two year of IP service though as per recruitment rules 5 years service in the given vacancy year is required to appear in PS Group “B” examination. Now many ineligible candidates are working as PS Group B officer. Is it not injustice with those on whose cost these 2008 batch officers favourably even by giving 100/100 marks have been promoted. My salute to Mr. Mohanarangam because it is due to this CAT case that now not only in officer cadre but in other cadres also vacancies are calculated on yearly basis and examinations are conducted year wise. Association is waiting for the final verdict of Hon’ble High Court. In case Hon’ble court uphold the original orders then our claim for creation of supernumerary posts to promote all Seniors from the date Junior has arbitrarily been promoted will sustain.
Consequent upon introduction of Postmaster cadre, department has carved out all 87 Sr. Postmaster Post cadre from 75% quota (seniority cum fitness quota) giving 100% reservation to LDCE blocking chances of ASPs to opt for Sr. Postmaster Cadre. Carving out post in such a manner is even against natural justice because Reservation in promotion by seniority subject to fitness was introduced in 1972 subject to the some conditions. In 1974, reservations in promotion by selection from C to B within B and from B to the lowest rung of Group A were introduced provided the element of direct recruitment does not exceed 50%. Why our department is not looking to it and facing court cases. However under General line 6% quota, 50:50 promotion criteria has been adopted. Now they will compete for 23 post through LDCE in PS Group “B” and rest 29 of 52 post has been earmarked for Sr. postmaster those will be promoted through Seniority cum fitness amongst the Grade-III Postmaster cadre officials. The case against this discrimination is pending in Hon’ble CAT bench Chandigarh with next date of hearing as 16-5-2013. Our comrades will fight till we get justice. Any individual comment from selfish IP/ASP can not deter us from fighting against injustice. IPASP Association….. Zindabad Zindabad !!!
I am thankful to Punjab Association for giving me a space for writing this article on the blog of Punjab. I am grateful to Sh. Vilas Ingale for filing IP GP CAT case and fighting for the rights of IPASPs. I am also thankful to him for consulting me on every issue before taking up case with appropriate authority. The motto of the union should be toward commitment to our members as a whole and not in individual capacity for personal gains. However genuine demands that do not affect others should be taken in right perspective.
Harimohan
Ex-CS Punjab
5 comments:
Harimohan ji
Sir,
No need to thanks. This is your blog and you are our respected comrade and will remain so. Whenever, you want you may. Your articles and comments will certainly lead to correct path. The justice should prevail at whatever cost. Nobody would set it right. It is our duty to make it clear and resolve with firmness. Thanks for the article. Please do write whenever you want to.
Sir,
I think everybody in IP ASP cadre, who are used to see the blogs, are aware of you even though they don’t belong to Punjab Circle. Most of your views are correct and thought provoking, but I have some reservations on the reasons for filing CAT case against the method of calculation of vacancies for PS Group B Cadre.
You may be aware of the DoPT order No.AB.14017/2/1997-Estt.(RR)Pt. dated 19.01.2007 (Issued as per the Supreme Court Judgements) which has to be followed while deciding the number of vacancies between different modes of recruitment. The said OM clearly says that the total no of vacancies of an year have to be first distributed between different modes of recruitment and then only the concerned roster (19% roster, 6% roster and 75% roster) has to be taken into account to arrive at the quota for SC/ST/OBC/UR. Instead of calculating the vacancies as per the said OM, you wanted to see the Roster first to arrive at the quota of individual modes of recruitment, which is clearly against the orders of said OM. We are not following the same logic while calculating the vacancies for PA Cadre between DR and DP quotas. There we, as ASP(Hqrs), are splitting the total vacancies of an year between LGOs and Direct recruitment by giving 50% each and then seeing the concerned roster. If we have to apply the logic of seeing the Roster first, there will not be any DR recruitment in certain divisions for years together (where already DP quota people are more than 50% of total strength) and there will not be any LGOs examination in some other divisions. The rosters are not meant to see that the prescribed percentage of people should be there at any given point of time, but their very purpose is to see whether the representation of OBC/SC/ST officials within the roster is as per the percentage of reservation prescribed for them. Therefore, there is a clear distribution of responsibility between the recruitment rules and the rosters. The distribution of vacancies should be done first as per the quota authorized by the Recruitment rules and then the responsibility of roster will come in deciding the inter-se reservation between various categories.
Further, I am of the opinion that the main reason for delayed promotion of Senior ASPs is not the mode of calculation of vacancies, but the Examination itself. Following the said OM will not cause any damage to the interests of Senior ASPs, as it straight away allocates 75% vacancies out of total vacancies for DPC promotion. It is not correct to say that at any moment of time the ratio of officials working in PS Group B Cadre should exactly match the percentages of their recruitment, as once they are recruited all becomes part of same cadre. The percentages has to be seen at the time of recruitment itself, but not afterwards. Therefore, it would have been apt if the Association fought against the Examination scheme itself, rather than disputing the method of calculation of vacancies between different modes.
I fully agree with you on the other points like carving out of vacancies for Postmaster cadre, conducting of combined examinations for 2003 to 2006 etc.,
With due respect to your fight for the cause of the IPs/ASPs on many issues of this cadre, I submitted these points for the information of all the members, so that a real debate can happen and a final conclusive stand can be taken. I request you to have a fresh thought on this issue and offer your further suggestions and views to guide us forward.
Sir,
Hon'ble Tribunal before directing the Directorate to revisit the calculations of vacancies, examined the said DoPT order No.AB.14017/2/1997-Estt.(RR)Pt. dated 19.01.2007, and failed to find answer as to how a single vacancy be filled. either by promotion or by LDCE from IP cadre or by LDCE from General line officials. Otherwise, also the Directorate after making thoughtful consideration accepted the verdict and did not throw challenge, rather implemented the judgement.
Sir,
I don't know as to why there should be any ambiguity in deciding the split up if there is one vacancy in an year. Obviously, the sole vacancy of the year will go to 75% DPC quota, as the split up will become 0.75, 0.19 and 0.06.
Even for our rosters/vacancy position, we will be rounding off to the nearest integer and in this case also, the same thing will happen. There should not be any ambiguity for this, I hope.
This situation will come for all the cadres (right from Gr D to Gr A), where there are more than one mode of recruitment.
Please let me know as to whether my version is right or not.
Dear all,
In my opinion, the "different mode of recruitment" mean direct recruitment and departmental promotion(either through DPC or LDCE). Further elaborating, the direct recruitment means selecting the candidates who are not already in the department(who are not working in the concerned department as Gr D/PM/PA/IP etc).
Secondly, all the PS Gp B posts are filled up by promotion only and there is no element of direct recruitment as per the above clarification. Hence comparing PA recruitment and PS Gp B promotion is not correct.
Thirdly, the department is not at all following any of the guidelines of DOP&T at a given situation to letter and spirit. Horses for the courses policy is being followed in the department as seemed from various cases arised out of various CAT cases.
A good example for this is "Fixation of inter-se-seniority between DPC GP B Officers and LDCE Gp B officers. As per DOP&T orders, the inter-se-seniority of any cadre officials have to be fixed following rota-quota where different methods of promotion have been prescribed in RRs with specified quotas for each. But the directorate is issuing seniority orders fixing inter-se-seniority of LDCE PS Gp B officers enblock below all the DPC prmotee PS Gp B Officers of that year(DPC year) violating the DOP&T orders/CAT judgements.
In my view, clear cut instructions need to be issued/refresher training to be imprated to those officials/officers who are handling the file at highest office for going thorough the relevant rules/instructions before finalsigng any sensitive orders like the above ones which could affect the interest/future of the many candidates. This is because, I heard that the department is replying some RTI query regarding arrival of vacancies for PS Gp B LDCE-2011&2012 in a different way. Thanks
N Prakash, AD Postal Dte.
Post a Comment