CONTRASTING PRINCPLES OF DOPT - ISSUES ANOTHER OM ON SC JUDGEMENT IN PARMAR CASE
Click here to download/view the DOPT's OM dated 4-3-2014.
Again the DOPT is withdrawing the OM issued in 2008 on interse seniority and resorting to 1986 OMs. On one side it is contemplating the SC's Judgement and reiterating the true meaning of the 1986 OM in the same lines interpreted by the SC, but on the other side it is ruling this could be effective only from Nov 2012 i.e. date of Judgement. One could wonder, how a OM issued in 1986 is effective only from Nov 2012. Also, it is stating that the for the people for whom the matter is settled in the lines of 1986 OM/SC Judgement, can not be reopened.
What do you call this standard of the DOPT?
Can an OM issued some 30 years ago can be implemented prospectively from 2012 only ?
God only knows.
8 comments:
Whether the DoPT instructions is binding legislation on the courts is doubt.
1. in para 33 of the supreme court order it was ruled that not only the date of requisition but also the advertisement should fall in the same year in which the vacancy was identified.
Q in the present instructions given by DoPT is contradictory to the said law as seniority recons from the date of requisition sent to recruiting agency ie The DoPT has opined that there is no need of advertisement or recruting agency can itself take its own time in recruting the candidates even it takes for selection 5 years, the notional seniority would automatically worked out as the dealy is attributable to the department but not either with the recruting agency or candidate. Rather rectifying, the DoPT has gone into back days ie OM dated 1959.
2. in Para h, DoPT instructed that it will give retrospectively from 2012. But this instructions could be easily challenged before the Supremecourt by the said DRs in the case of NR permar since the issue of facts related to the 1993 and if DoPT say that it is being effective from 2012.
3. whether future vacancies could be filled up with previous recruitment process without having the number of vacancies and the validity as per Supreme court order in Assam Public service commission and in civil appeal no.969 of 2014 in the matter of public appointments. While issuing instructions, this point was not taken care
Please don't mis-interpret the DOPT OM and if it is misinterpreted also ...it does not matter any more...Firstly, OM of DOPT dated 03.03.2008 has been withdrawn ab-initio...hence seniority of DR ITI joined after 03.03.2008 is to be fixed as per OM dated 1986.Secondly, seniority issue of Inspector cader was never a settled issue as CBDT has already issued a letter on 22.02.2005 to all CCA stating that "All promotions in ITI cader" is subject to order of Supreme Court in the case of NRP, hence seniority of ITI cader being unsettled is clearly applicable to be governed by this OM....but not to other caders. Thirdly,GOI (CBDT) has gone to SC against N R Parmar (PR) and won the case..so again the seniority of ITI cader was never settled till date of judgement..Now the learned officials may go through the OM again and decide...
So sad news for the DR ITIs who day dream about their becomming of ITO by citing Parmaar case even though it will not applicable to them. Lot of such persons didnot apply for the interstate transfer hoping to get accelerated seniority and becomming ACIT out of turn. They also lost their non hard earned money which they got without doing any fruitful office work. Atleast now onwards they should work for the department for which they are getting the salary.
The present DoPT is now again done a mistake by not mentioning that whether this instructions is amended or clarified. Since the present instruction dated 4.3.2014 is classificatory in nature rather amendment and not only that before passing instructions, the other Supreme court verdicts with regard to notional seniority should also be taken careof. The supreme court in several cases has ruled the law that without born in the department seniority could not be claimed even notional also as the promotions is linked with Confidential reports and how CRs will be drawn on an employee who not even in born in that cadre.
Really sorry for the PR's. They can't even interpret the OM correctly. The seniority of ITI's has never been to settled case. Hence in case of zIT department the OM would be retrospective. But in case of other departments it would be prospective. This is because all seniority lists, promotion orders and recruitment requisitions were subject to outcome of NRP. So it was never a settled issue. Now you honorably concede to the truth. Satyamev Jayate.
The present DoPT is now again done a mistake by not mentioning that whether this instructions is amended or clarified. Since the present instruction dated 4.3.2014 is classificatory in nature rather amendment and not only that before passing instructions, the other Supreme court verdicts with regard to notional seniority should also be taken careof. The supreme court in several cases has ruled the law that without born in the department seniority could not be claimed even notional also as the promotions is linked with Confidential reports and how CRs will be drawn on an employee who not even in born in that cadre.
DOPT के 04.03.2014 के OM मे हमारे विरुद्ध कुछ भी नहीं है और ना ही कुछ CONFUSING AND CONTRADICTORY है. PARA 5(A) के अनुसार 03.03.2008 का OM NON-EST/WITHDRAWN AB INITIO है इसका मतलब जो SENIORITY 03.03.2008 के अनुसार फिक्स की गई थी वो ख़तम. अब DEPARTMENT को नई SENIORITY फिक्स करनी पड़ेगी. अब चूंकि 27.11.2012 की डेट निकल चुकी है और SENIORITY अब आने वाले समय मे ही फिक्स होगी तो PARA 5(H) हम लोगों के ऊपर पूरी तरह लागो होता है जो कहता है की अगर SENIORITY 27.11.2012 के बाद फिक्स होगी तो PARA 5(A) से PARA 5(G) के अनुसार ही होगी.दोस्तों हम सभी की SENIORITY 27.11.2012 के बाद ही फिक्स होगी. अगर ऐसा नहीं हुआ तो दो बहुत बड़ी समस्याएं आएँगी:-
१. जो गुजरात के SAATHI (direct ratna) इस केस को लेकर सुप्रीम कोर्ट तक गए उन्हें भी इसका फायदा नहीं मिलेगा. तो फिर उनके केस लड़ने का क्या फायदा.
२. २०१० बैच २०११ बैच से जूनियर हो जाएगा क्योंकी २०११ बैच को SENIORITY, date of initiation से मिलेगी जबकि २०१० बैच को actual joining से.
ऊपर से लब्बो लुआब यह निकलता है की हमें SENIORITY २००५-०६ से ही मिलेगी.
DoPT has issued OM on 04.03.2014, in pursuance of order of SC on 27.11.2012.
DoPT should have issued this OM on 27.11.2012. Due to administrative delay, it has been issued on 04.03.2014.
if effective date would have not been mentioned in this OM, it would be effective from 04.03.2014.
therefore, DoPT has conveyed that
this all clarification issued vide this OM, may be treated as issued on 27.11.2012.
Therefore, the term 'effective'has been written rather than 'applicable'.
OM of 2008 has been withdrawn 'ab initio' means by origin---means as it was not issued ever--means as never issued.
seniority list drawn according to OM 2008 is itself null and void.
27.11.2012, effective date means seniority list drawn on or after 04.03.2014 following the manner laid down in this OM will be effective from 27.11.2012 not from date of recasting of seniority list.
simply, a revised list, according to manner laid down in this OM, has to be recast, this list has to be made effective from 27.11.2012.
what is doubt, why is doubt
in any case, seniority list drawn on the basis of OM, 2008 has to be withdrawn, since OM,2008 itself has withdrawn.
When it will be done. on 04.03.2014 or after that?
No, it will, though, practically done after 04.03.2014, but this exercise had to be done on 27.11.2012, date of order of SC. Which is admitted by DoPT on 04.03.2014 conveying that this manner would be (instead of ‘will be’) effective (instead of ‘applicable’) from 27.11.2012. meaning that seniority list has to be revised as per clarification on 04.03.2014. This list would be effective from 27.11.2012. Why it could not be before 27.11.2012?..because DoPT has not issued instruction before. Why DoPT not issued instruction before?..because there was no decision of SC. But, why 27.11.2012?..because SC has decided the case on 27.11.2012.
Thus, Though, DoPT issued clarification on 04.03.2014, it would be effective on the date of decision by SC.
Post a Comment