Pr. CCIT, Mumbai has prepared Final Establishment Register taking into account NRP case. Also stated, all the relevant representations regarding revised Establishment Register(Seniority List ) of lnspector of Income Tax in Mumbai Charge dated 12.04.2014 are disposeod off.
PLEASE CLICK HERE CCIT LETTER AND SENIORITY LIST COPY
17 comments:
And DPC for ITOs with NRP is DONE at MUMBAI too...246 recommended and order is coming soon...Kochi DPC for ITOs with NRP is also done...Chennai & Bangalore Get ready for big REVERSION...Only Due to mistake of Learned CCA...Also Rajasthan DPC with NRP promotion order out...
great news.. justice only prevails for ever.. thank you
It will be interesting to see how many of the Pr.CCITs will obey the CBDT instructions.
Please update on 06-06-2014 how many has obeyed the CBDTs instructions to hold the DPC on or before 05-06-2014.
all dr inspectors have probation period from their date of joining in the cadre and untill they have cleared the deptt inspectors test they are under officiating post and after getting substantive post only they will be confirmed in their cadre. This issue was not dealt in the NR permar. When they have joined in 2008 how without getting substantive post, how the seniority could be given from 2005 ie date of notification. For promotees also adhock promotions could not be count for seniority purpose and at the same time for DRs untill they get substantive, could not get seniority. How this simple logic was miplaced by the Mumbai CCIT. How is the suporeme whether Mumbai CCIT or Prime minister. DoPT is head is Prime Minister. When prime minister says in 4.3,2014 how to implement, who is the CCIT to go beyond the directions of the prime minister. If it feels higher thAN PRIME MINISTER THEN WHY THE cbdt HAS REFERRED THE MATTER TO DOPT for directions. Then after receipt of the same why it was not implemented. IS THE CCIT MUMBAI IS THE RESPONDENT IN IN NR PERMAR CASE. NO DEFINETELY NOT. IS THERE ANY DIRECTIONS BY THE SUPOREME COURT IN THE SAID JUDGEMENT TO IMPLEMENT INTOTO. DEFINITELY NOT THERE. IS IT WAS NOT MENTIONED THAT IT GETS EFFECT FROM RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT OR PROSPECTIVE EFFECT. NO. IT WAS MENTIONED JUST ' IN THE INSTANT CASE' THEN HOW IT EFFECT ON CCIT MUMBAI. SO DEFINITELY THERE IS PRESURRE ON HIM. IF SO, WITHOUT GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE SERVING EMPLOYEES AND WITHOUT OBSERVING THE OTHER SUOPREME COURT JUDGEMENTS THAT NO ONE IS PERMITTED TO UNSETTLE THE SETTLED POSITION OR SENIORITY AFTER THE LIMITATION PERIOD EXPIRES. IE 3.7.86 COULD NOT BE REVISED AFTER 26 YEARS.
As on date Nagpur, Delhi, Gujarat, Mumbai, Rajasthan & Kochi has conducted DPC with NRP...within next 2days Lucknow, Kolkata & Probably Pune will do DPC with NRP...still Doubt..from above post of learned member, it is found that still he wants to submit something...Jaldi Karo Sir...else other region will Do...Shame..how can we question Now also...
GO BACK IN TIME MACHINE. ASK YOUR SENIORS WHO SERVED DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO 1986 HOW THEY GOT SENIORITY IN VACANCY YEAR? HOW YOUR SIMPLE LOGIC WHICH YOU DISCOVERED AFTER JOINING THE DEPARTMENT THAT SENIORITY STARTS ONLY FROM CONFIRMATION DATE...DESPITE SENIORITY AND CONFIRMATIONHAVE NO LINKAGE.. GO BACK IN TIME MACHINE AND START YOUR TEACHING FROM 1959... TOTALLY CONFUSED SOUL....
SR TA TO ITO PROMOTION WHETHER VACANCY CREATED BY ITI PROMOTION TO ITO, COUNT OR NOT. IF COUNT WHICH METHOD FOLLOW?
MUMBAI PR CCIT HAS NOT DONE JUSTICE. HE HAS CONSIDERED THE BENEFIT OF ONLY DR. INSPECTORS AND HIS SAFE RETIERMENT. HE KNOWS THAT 1986 OM HAS NOT BEEN FOLLOWED IN CADRE OF LDC AND UDC . DEPARTMENT HAD FOLLOWED 1986 OM ONLY FOR DR.INSPECTORS AND REVISED THEIR SENIORITY LIST IN 2003 BUT DID NOT FOLLOWED THE SAME IN CADRE OF LDC OR UDC INSPITE OF CONTINUOUS DEMAND. STILL MATTER IS IN CAT AND NEXT HEARING ON 10.06.2014.TODAY WHO ARE NOT LIABLE TO GET PROMOTION ,ARE IN PROMOTION LIST AND THOSE WHO HAVE ACTUAL RIGHT FOR PROMOTION ARE OUT OF LIST. IF DOPT HAS ALREADY GIVEN CLARIFICATION ON OM DATED 04.03.2014 THEN WHY BOARD NOT COMMUNACATED TO ALL CCA TO IMPLEMENT IN ALL CADRES. WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS ACTION.
board has always been the proverbial black board( or shall we say black hole. Whatever goes in there never comes out. No wonder the clarification from DOPT dated 01.05.2014 has met its inevitable fate.
WHEN A DR INSPECTOR JOINS HE WILL HAVE TO CLEAR THE INSPECTOR EXAM FOR GETTING A SUBSTANTIVE APPOINTMENT AND THEN ONLY HE WILL BE ELIGIBLE TO SIT FOR THE ITO EXAM. HOWEVER, HIS PR COUNTERPART IN INSPECTOR CADRE WOULD HAVE CLEARED THE ITO EXAM BY THAT TIME. THUS, A DR INSPECTOR ALWAYS STARTS HIS CAREER WITH A DISADVANTAGE ALTHOUGH MANY OF THEM OVERCOME THIS DISADVANTAGE IN DUE TIME.SO WHY THIS HEART BURNING WHEN DR INSPECTORS GET THEIR DUE SENIORITY WHICH HAS BEEN DENIED TO THEM DUE TO ADMINISTRATIVE DELAYS.
Respected PR friends...if 1986 OM was not followed earlier..then whose fault it is..?? DR just wanted that dept should follow rule established long before 1986...So pls think, who is in mistake...after 1 & half yr its implemented..why such delay..who has delayed...we knew very well that it will be implemented...Just think Sir..Dont blame DR...
how the CCIT(CCA) are not following the DOpT guidelines issued by the DoPT in 4.3.2014 in implementing NR permar line from 3.7.86 now. If any court says to implement, why they are not referring to DoPT to act upon. Is there any specific directions from DoPT to the respective CCIT(CCA) to implement NR permar. No-there was no such directions received by them. Then how they are over acting upon and moreso, the ITO's seniority is all India seniority and hence it get effects on other states. So, the CCIT(CCA) has no power to implement as they choice. They should depend on the DoPT guidelines issued on 4th March 2014 and also DoPT instructions 1995. Have they observed. So, be put their interest in revenue collection rather revising the seniority from 1986 which was settled 26 years back without the fault of the employee by depriving the morale of the serving employees who in turn fails in revenue collections with this doing injustice to them.
Cannot appoint more than vacancies advertised: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of India, in a recent decision, has restated the law of the land that it is not permissible for the Government to hand out more appointments than the vacancies that are advertised. The Court noted that the law had been settled by a number of decisions of the Supreme Court itself that it was against the law and also the rights of others to appoint more people than the vacancies advertised. The decision notes as under;
9. It is a settled legal proposition that vacancies cannot be filled up over and above the number of vacancies advertised as “the recruitment of the candidates in excess of the notified vacancies is a denial and deprivation of the constitutional right under Article 14 read with Article 16(1) of the Constitution”, of those persons who acquired eligibility for the post in question in accordance with the statutory rules subsequent to the date of notification of vacancies. Filling up the vacancies over the notified vacancies is neither permissible nor desirable, for the reason, that it amounts to “improper exercise of power and only in a rare and exceptional circumstance and in emergent situation, such a rule can be deviated and such a deviation is permissible only after adopting policy decision based on some rational”, otherwise the exercise would be arbitrary. Filling up of vacancies over the notified vacancies amounts to filling up of future vacancies and thus, not permissible in law. (Vide Union of India & Ors. v. Ishwar Singh Khatri & Ors. (1992) Supp 3 SCC 84; Gujarat State Deputy Executive Engineers’ Association v. State of Gujarat & Ors. (1994) Supp 2 SCC 591; State of Bihar & Ors. v. The Secretariat Assistant S.E. Union 1986 & Ors AIR 1994 SC 736; Prem Singh & Ors. v. Haryana State Electricity Board & Ors. (1996) 4 SCC 319; and Ashok Kumar & Ors. v. Chairman, Banking Service Recruitment Board & Ors. AIR 1996 SC 976).
10. In Surinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. AIR 1998 SC 18, this Court held as under: “A waiting list prepared in an examination conducted by the Commission does not furnish a source of recruitment. It is operative only for the contingency that if any of the selected candidates does not join then the person from the waiting list may be pushed up and be appointed in the vacancy so caused or if there is some extreme exigency the Government may as a matter of policy decision pick up persons in order of merit from the waiting list. But the view taken by the High Court that since the vacancies have not been worked out properly, therefore, the candidates from the waiting list were liable to be appointed does not appear to be sound. This practice, may result in depriving those candidates who become eligible for competing for the vacancies available in future. If the waiting list in one examination was to operate as an infinite stock for appointment, there is a danger that the State Government may resort to the device of not holding an examination for years together and pick up candidates from the waiting list as and when required. The constitutional discipline requires that this Court should not permit such improper exercise of power which may result in creating a vested interest and perpetrate waiting list for the candidates of one examination at the cost of entire set of fresh candidates either from the open or even from service…..Exercise of such power has to be tested on the touchstone of reasonableness….It is not a matter of course that the authority can fill up more posts than advertised.”
PR ITIs of all regions are appealed to file writ petition before High Court of the respective charges for the invalid appointment of the DR ITIs of 2005 batch. when the appointment is valid then the question of seniority is not raised.
Normally we find useless blogs highlighting fight between DRs and PRs. But here is a brilliant piece vide blog of June 7, 2014 at 9:27 PM.
congrats for the piece for sheer its brilliance and substance and presentation quality.
A proof of intellect.
I feel one correction is required in the last line of blog of June 7, 2014 at 9:27 PM. The word 'valid' needs to be replaced with 'invalid'
fresh letter to all ccit cca issued by board to give effect to all cadres...Pr ccit mumbai pls read
Dear, don't be so aggressive, you will shocked to know that the posts filled through cgl 2005 pertain to posts for direct recruitment of R. Y. 2003 2004 which were due to policy of then government, kept withheld and as and when the policy changed all the vacancies were included. So if this matter opens , seniority will again be re -fixed.
Post a Comment