Thursday, December 31, 2009
HAPPY NEW YEAR 2010 !!!!!!
HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL AUPO MEMBERS ....MAY ALL OUR PROBLEMS BE SOLVED IN THIS NEW YEAR BY THE GRACE OF ALMIGHTY...MAY ALL OF US GET OUR RIGHTFUL PROMOTIONS, & DUES SOON... BEST WISHES FOR A VERY HAPPY & PROSPEROUS NEW YEAR 2010 !!!!
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
SPECIAL AUDIT OF PRASAR BHARATHI ON:- GOVERNMENT
With infighting in the Prasar Bharati board showing no sign of ending the government on 07-12-2009 said it has ordered a special audit of the public broadcaster over the functioning of the board and other financial issues linked to it.
"The government has ordered a special audit of the Prasar Bharati on general accounting issues, including the issue of the functioning of Prasar Bharati and its board and special financial issue as per the complaints of the member (finance) of Prasar Bharati," Minister of State for Information and Broadcasting C.M. Jatua told the Rajya Sabha.
He was responding to questions on the functioning of the public broadcaster.
Jatua told the upper house that the government has received copies of letters from member of the Prasar Bharati Board and its CEO B.S. Lalli.
"These letters are in the nature of allegations regarding irresponsible behaviour of the chairman, CEO and members of the board, manner of fixing dates for the board meetings, finalisation and issue of minutes in departure from the past practices, financial irregularities and systemic problems indicating disharmony among the board members" Jatua said.
Jatua, however, denied that there was any proposal for establishment of a regulatory authority for the smooth functioning of Prasar Bharati.
The bitter infighting among Prasar Bharati board members has turned into a big embarrassment for the government which is mulling different options to bring some order into the functioning of the public broadcaster that controls Doordarshan and All India Radio.
Information and Broadcasting Minister Ambika Soni had submitted a report to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in September over the allegations and counter-allegations that board members have levelled against each other (FROM FRIENDS OF PRASAR BHARATHI)
Monday, November 30, 2009
Doordarshan is synonymous of Credibility : Himachal Pradesh C.M
The Chief Minister was addressing viewers of a cultural evening organized by Doordarshan Kendra, Shimla to commemorate 'Golden Jubilee Celebrations of Doordarshan in India' at Peterhof here last evening.
Mr Dhumal congratulated Doordarshan for successfully completing 50 years of its service to the nation by maintaining credibility and airing decent programmes. He said that various channels of Doordarshan had access to every home in the country and is a strong medium of communication.
Mr Dhumal said that the two day long 'Regional Rajbhasha Sammelan' organized by Doordarshan would go a long way in popularizing Hindi, which was the most common and effective mode of communication amongst the people from all walks of life.
The Chief Minister said that Shimla had witnessed numerous historical events from Indo-Pak Summit, Pre-Independence Pacts, Macmohan Line Agreement to many other historic conferences and pacts, which were signed between Indian and British leaders during pre-Independence era.
Mr Dhumal wished Doordarshan to scale greater heights in future years so that its credibility was maintained for all the times to come. (courtesy:-friendsofprasarbharathy.org)
Telecast of Doordarshan in USA, Canada and other foreign countries demanded
In a letter to Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh , Information and Broadcasting Minister Ambika Soni, Manch patron Dr. Charanjit Singh Gumtala stated that large number of Indians are now settled in U.S.A., U.K., Canada, Australia and other countries.Indian channels other than Doordarshan like Zee TV, Star TV, Aaj Tak, Sahara, Alpha Punjabi, PTC Punjabi etc are being telecaste in these countries.
Punjabis are also settled in large number in these countries and private Indian Punjabi channels are being telecast in these countries. So DD Punjabi along with other regional channels should also be made available in these countries.
Doordarshan can earn a large amount of money on advertisements etc. Copy of the letter has been sent to Dr. Manohar Singh Gill Minister of Sports and Youth welfare and Navjot Singh Sidhu, Member Parliament and Tarlochan Singh MP. (courtesy:-friendsofprasarbharathy.org)
Friday, November 13, 2009
BJP LEADER WRITES TO PM
BJP leader writes to PM over state of affairs in Prasar Bharti
Senior BJP leader Prabhat Jha has written to prime minister Manmohan Singh seeking his intervention to improve the state of affairs in public broadcaster Prasar Bharati which has been mired in internal squabbles between its board members and the CEO.
In a letter written on November 3, Prabhat Jha has urged the PM to "set up a Parliamentary committee to monitor and regulate the quality of Prasar Bharati so that its performance may be improved and it again becomes popular in every household".
He requested Singh to "consider the matter urgently and take required steps in instituting a Parliamentary committee for the purpose".
Jha said the reason Doordarshan is failing to compete with other channels is "because a large number of vacancies (around 17,400) are waiting to be filled and Prasar Bharati, an autonomous body, cannot make appointments under the pretext of some government 'ban' on appointments".
Terming it as "ridiculous", he said "as per Prasar Bharati Act, the public broadcaster is entitled to make appointments but what is stopping it remains puzzling".
Hoping that Singh will intervene in the matter, Jha said, "I request you to take personal interest and see that a Parliamentary committee is in place to improve the quality of Doordarshan to make it competitive. I also hope that you will take immediate steps in filling 17,400 vacancies in Prasar Bharati. (From friends of prasarbharathi.org)"
Senior BJP leader Prabhat Jha has written to prime minister Manmohan Singh seeking his intervention to improve the state of affairs in public broadcaster Prasar Bharati which has been mired in internal squabbles between its board members and the CEO.
In a letter written on November 3, Prabhat Jha has urged the PM to "set up a Parliamentary committee to monitor and regulate the quality of Prasar Bharati so that its performance may be improved and it again becomes popular in every household".
He requested Singh to "consider the matter urgently and take required steps in instituting a Parliamentary committee for the purpose".
Jha said the reason Doordarshan is failing to compete with other channels is "because a large number of vacancies (around 17,400) are waiting to be filled and Prasar Bharati, an autonomous body, cannot make appointments under the pretext of some government 'ban' on appointments".
Terming it as "ridiculous", he said "as per Prasar Bharati Act, the public broadcaster is entitled to make appointments but what is stopping it remains puzzling".
Hoping that Singh will intervene in the matter, Jha said, "I request you to take personal interest and see that a Parliamentary committee is in place to improve the quality of Doordarshan to make it competitive. I also hope that you will take immediate steps in filling 17,400 vacancies in Prasar Bharati. (From friends of prasarbharathi.org)"
Sunday, October 18, 2009
GOVERNMENT TO STRIP PRASAR BHARATHI BOARD OF IT'S POWERS
The government appears set to strip the existing Prasar Bharati Board of its powers, the apex body formed 17 years ago to provide autonomy to the state-run All India Radio and Doordarshan, now mired in corruption and controversies.
The Law ministry has given a go ahead to Information and Broadcasting ministry to take legal recourse to suspend the existing board and put in place a government official in-charge of the board, HT has learnt.
Earlier, also the government had appointed Additional Secretary in the ministry as Chief Executive Officer of the Prasar Bharati during the period new CEOs were being selected.
However, senior I&B ministry officials said the decision on whether an Ordinance or a amendment to the Prasar Bharati Act to dissolve the present board would be taken after October 25, when the global broadcasting union is supposed to clear the plan for Commonwealth Games coverage.
The government’s worry is whether the present Prasar Bharti board would be able to provide world class coverage of the 2010 Commonwealth Games, given its sorry plight is understood to have triggered the drastic move.
The Board, which gets around Rs 1,500 crore (Rs 15 billion) every year from the Information and Broadcasting Ministry, has been virtually defunct since eight months, plagued by severe infighting among its top officials.
On directions from the Prime Minister’s office, the I&B Ministry had sought an opinion from the Law Ministry “on available options” to stem the rot, since the Prasar Bharti Act does not allow any direct intervention in its affairs.
A report in this regard has already been submitted to the Prime Minister’s Office, I&B minister Ambika Soni said, last week. She, however, refused to elaborate on the contents of the report.
In its opinion, the Law Ministry is learnt to have stated that the government “is empowered to take away the powers of a Board in case it finds that the Board has failed to function.”
“The government has no option other than to amend the Act by which the Prasar Bharti Corporation was constituted, given its miserable plight,” said a senior Law Ministry official, on the condition of anonymity. “Once the powers are taken away, the Board is assumed to be dissolved and the government can go in for a fresh body. It can happen by an ordinance or taking the matter directly to parliament,” the official said.
The Central Vigilance Commission was looking into seven cases of financial irregularities related to Prasar Bharti, refered to it by the I&B Ministry on directions of the Delhi High Court.
HINDUSTAN TIMES,SUN.18TH OCTOBER 2009
The Law ministry has given a go ahead to Information and Broadcasting ministry to take legal recourse to suspend the existing board and put in place a government official in-charge of the board, HT has learnt.
Earlier, also the government had appointed Additional Secretary in the ministry as Chief Executive Officer of the Prasar Bharati during the period new CEOs were being selected.
However, senior I&B ministry officials said the decision on whether an Ordinance or a amendment to the Prasar Bharati Act to dissolve the present board would be taken after October 25, when the global broadcasting union is supposed to clear the plan for Commonwealth Games coverage.
The government’s worry is whether the present Prasar Bharti board would be able to provide world class coverage of the 2010 Commonwealth Games, given its sorry plight is understood to have triggered the drastic move.
The Board, which gets around Rs 1,500 crore (Rs 15 billion) every year from the Information and Broadcasting Ministry, has been virtually defunct since eight months, plagued by severe infighting among its top officials.
On directions from the Prime Minister’s office, the I&B Ministry had sought an opinion from the Law Ministry “on available options” to stem the rot, since the Prasar Bharti Act does not allow any direct intervention in its affairs.
A report in this regard has already been submitted to the Prime Minister’s Office, I&B minister Ambika Soni said, last week. She, however, refused to elaborate on the contents of the report.
In its opinion, the Law Ministry is learnt to have stated that the government “is empowered to take away the powers of a Board in case it finds that the Board has failed to function.”
“The government has no option other than to amend the Act by which the Prasar Bharti Corporation was constituted, given its miserable plight,” said a senior Law Ministry official, on the condition of anonymity. “Once the powers are taken away, the Board is assumed to be dissolved and the government can go in for a fresh body. It can happen by an ordinance or taking the matter directly to parliament,” the official said.
The Central Vigilance Commission was looking into seven cases of financial irregularities related to Prasar Bharti, refered to it by the I&B Ministry on directions of the Delhi High Court.
HINDUSTAN TIMES,SUN.18TH OCTOBER 2009
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
DD COMMANDS HIGHEST CHANNEL SHARE AMONGST ALL !!!!!
Public broadcaster Doordarshan (DD) not only commands the highest channel share compared to private networks, but also attracts a far greater number of viewers, according to TAM Media Research, which recently made a presentation to this effect before the Information and Broadcasting Minister Ambika Soni.
The TAM numbers have managed to establish the supremacy of DD over competing news channels like Aaj Tak and India TV and also entertainment channels like Star Plus, Colors and Zee TV in the year 2009. DD is the country's largest TV broadcaster with a penetration of 107 million households; while the number of households with cable & satellite TV are about 85 million, in comparison. Instead of using the Weekly data, the TAM presentation was backed by statistics and data for 31 weeks, from January 2009 till the beginning of August. Therefore, while private channels are ranked according to weekly fluctuations in ratings, DD was established as a top channel using the average ratings for these 31 weeks.
Taking this average data for 31 weeks in the 85 million cable homes, TAM shows DD1 was leading in the 8-8:30 pm time band with a channel share of 20 per cent and ahead of Aaj Tak (18 per cent) and India TV (14 per cent). For private news channels, the prime time news bands are 8 pm to 9 pm, and 9 pm to 10 pm.
Channel share simply means a channel-wise percentage allocation from a universe of 100 viewers, who watched various news channels in a particular time band during a week. While DD has a 24-hour DD news channel, TAM did not use this channel to compare it with private TV news broadcasters. Instead, it has compared the news during peak time with DD1
To establish the supremacy of a musical talent show on DD1 called 'Jalsa', TAM data have compared its ratings on July 12, aired between 10:30 to 11 pm, with ratings of general entertainment shows aired on private channels between 8:30 pm and 11 pm on Zee TV, Colors, Star Plus and others. Comparing the performance of the same movies on DD1 with those aired on Colors, Star Plus, Zee Cinema, Sony and UTV Movies, among others, TAM data for Hindi-speaking markets show higher ratings than those aired on private channels. The DDI rating for, say, Jab We Met, was 3.5 TRP, compared an average rating of only 1 in Colors, which had shown the movie nine times.
The research shows that movies like Jab We Met, Bhool Bhulaiyan and Kabhi Alvida Na Kehna got four-five times higher television ratings on DD1 compared to the private channels. However, this was because all these blockbusters were aired only once on DD1 (between January 1 to August 8), as compared to up to nine times on private channels. Comparing sports events like the two cricket ODI series in January-February 2009 that were simulcast on both DD1 and Neo Cricket, TAM data show that both coverage's attracted a similar number of viewers. While DD1 had an all-India reach of 68 million viewers, Neo Cricket had a reach of 70 million for the same series. However, DD and its two-dozen channels do not attract more than Rs 500 crore in advertising revenue in a year compared to nearly Rs 4,500 crore generated on private channels, including the news channels, movie channels and the general entertainment channels.
Fast moving consumer goods (FMCG) companies have more screen presence than car makers and telecom companies on all DD channels, though the latter two are pushing hard for rural sales. The top ten advertisers on all the 50 DD channels are FMCG companies. The TAM data shows that Hindustan Unilever (HUL), the country's biggest advertiser, leads the pack as the top private advertiser on DD with a 9 per cent share. HUL is followed by ITC with a 2 per cent share. Other top advertisers include Wipro, Emami, Dabur, Colgate-Palmolive, Heinz, Perfetti Van Melle, Godrej Consumer Products and Reckitt Benckiser. Telecom is the second most advertised category with media buyers saying that it is bound to find more space on DD. While FMCGs buy more volume of advertising, telecom companies buy more high-value deals at a premium.
While FMCGs consume more inventory since they buy airtime across the day, telecom companies buy air-time mostly during evening prime time. That's because FMCG advertising is aimed more at women who would watch TV through the day while telecom companies target the male audience who would typically tune in during the evenings. Companies and media buyers, however, said that DD is a medium no marketer with a rural focus can afford to ignore. Godrej Consumer Products' price warrior soap brand, Godrej No 1, crossed Rs 500 crore in value sales in June '09. Over the past 18-20 months, Godrej No 1 has focused its ad spends only on DD, highlighting the brand's affordability plank.
The Kolkata-based Rs 750-crore FMCG company Emami Ltd, which makes Boroplus, Himani Fast Relief and Fair & Handsome cream said its portfolio appeals to consumers who watch only DD, where cable TV does not reach. Typically, Emami spends about 70 per cent of its budgets on satellite channels and the remaining 30 per cent on DD. It is learnt that FMCG is the highest-penetrated category in rural markets, so DD naturally figures in their media plans. Rates on DD are about 50 per cent less than that of private channels, so even if companies buy more air-time on the channel, they spend lesser in comparison.
(NEWS FROM friendsofprasarbharathi.org)
The TAM numbers have managed to establish the supremacy of DD over competing news channels like Aaj Tak and India TV and also entertainment channels like Star Plus, Colors and Zee TV in the year 2009. DD is the country's largest TV broadcaster with a penetration of 107 million households; while the number of households with cable & satellite TV are about 85 million, in comparison. Instead of using the Weekly data, the TAM presentation was backed by statistics and data for 31 weeks, from January 2009 till the beginning of August. Therefore, while private channels are ranked according to weekly fluctuations in ratings, DD was established as a top channel using the average ratings for these 31 weeks.
Taking this average data for 31 weeks in the 85 million cable homes, TAM shows DD1 was leading in the 8-8:30 pm time band with a channel share of 20 per cent and ahead of Aaj Tak (18 per cent) and India TV (14 per cent). For private news channels, the prime time news bands are 8 pm to 9 pm, and 9 pm to 10 pm.
Channel share simply means a channel-wise percentage allocation from a universe of 100 viewers, who watched various news channels in a particular time band during a week. While DD has a 24-hour DD news channel, TAM did not use this channel to compare it with private TV news broadcasters. Instead, it has compared the news during peak time with DD1
To establish the supremacy of a musical talent show on DD1 called 'Jalsa', TAM data have compared its ratings on July 12, aired between 10:30 to 11 pm, with ratings of general entertainment shows aired on private channels between 8:30 pm and 11 pm on Zee TV, Colors, Star Plus and others. Comparing the performance of the same movies on DD1 with those aired on Colors, Star Plus, Zee Cinema, Sony and UTV Movies, among others, TAM data for Hindi-speaking markets show higher ratings than those aired on private channels. The DDI rating for, say, Jab We Met, was 3.5 TRP, compared an average rating of only 1 in Colors, which had shown the movie nine times.
The research shows that movies like Jab We Met, Bhool Bhulaiyan and Kabhi Alvida Na Kehna got four-five times higher television ratings on DD1 compared to the private channels. However, this was because all these blockbusters were aired only once on DD1 (between January 1 to August 8), as compared to up to nine times on private channels. Comparing sports events like the two cricket ODI series in January-February 2009 that were simulcast on both DD1 and Neo Cricket, TAM data show that both coverage's attracted a similar number of viewers. While DD1 had an all-India reach of 68 million viewers, Neo Cricket had a reach of 70 million for the same series. However, DD and its two-dozen channels do not attract more than Rs 500 crore in advertising revenue in a year compared to nearly Rs 4,500 crore generated on private channels, including the news channels, movie channels and the general entertainment channels.
Fast moving consumer goods (FMCG) companies have more screen presence than car makers and telecom companies on all DD channels, though the latter two are pushing hard for rural sales. The top ten advertisers on all the 50 DD channels are FMCG companies. The TAM data shows that Hindustan Unilever (HUL), the country's biggest advertiser, leads the pack as the top private advertiser on DD with a 9 per cent share. HUL is followed by ITC with a 2 per cent share. Other top advertisers include Wipro, Emami, Dabur, Colgate-Palmolive, Heinz, Perfetti Van Melle, Godrej Consumer Products and Reckitt Benckiser. Telecom is the second most advertised category with media buyers saying that it is bound to find more space on DD. While FMCGs buy more volume of advertising, telecom companies buy more high-value deals at a premium.
While FMCGs consume more inventory since they buy airtime across the day, telecom companies buy air-time mostly during evening prime time. That's because FMCG advertising is aimed more at women who would watch TV through the day while telecom companies target the male audience who would typically tune in during the evenings. Companies and media buyers, however, said that DD is a medium no marketer with a rural focus can afford to ignore. Godrej Consumer Products' price warrior soap brand, Godrej No 1, crossed Rs 500 crore in value sales in June '09. Over the past 18-20 months, Godrej No 1 has focused its ad spends only on DD, highlighting the brand's affordability plank.
The Kolkata-based Rs 750-crore FMCG company Emami Ltd, which makes Boroplus, Himani Fast Relief and Fair & Handsome cream said its portfolio appeals to consumers who watch only DD, where cable TV does not reach. Typically, Emami spends about 70 per cent of its budgets on satellite channels and the remaining 30 per cent on DD. It is learnt that FMCG is the highest-penetrated category in rural markets, so DD naturally figures in their media plans. Rates on DD are about 50 per cent less than that of private channels, so even if companies buy more air-time on the channel, they spend lesser in comparison.
(NEWS FROM friendsofprasarbharathi.org)
Monday, August 31, 2009
AFFIDAVITS IN COURT
Dear All,
DG, AIR and DD, were supposed to file two separate affidavits in the contempt matter today.
1. The lawyer asked for 2 weeks more time (to verify records)..... The court granted them time till 18th September 2009.
2. The Lawyer also asked that both DG,AIR and DG,DD be permitted to file a single affidavit. This was protested by us. We maintained that it was important that both the DG's file separate affidavits as only then the truth can emerge. The judge also agreed that two separate affidavits can be filed as there can only be one truth.... and also since if contempt needs to be established it has to be against a particular individual.
Regards
Jose
DG, AIR and DD, were supposed to file two separate affidavits in the contempt matter today.
1. The lawyer asked for 2 weeks more time (to verify records)..... The court granted them time till 18th September 2009.
2. The Lawyer also asked that both DG,AIR and DG,DD be permitted to file a single affidavit. This was protested by us. We maintained that it was important that both the DG's file separate affidavits as only then the truth can emerge. The judge also agreed that two separate affidavits can be filed as there can only be one truth.... and also since if contempt needs to be established it has to be against a particular individual.
Regards
Jose
Friday, August 21, 2009
CVC PROBE IN TO PRASARBHARATHI LEGAL BILL
As Jose has pointed out many times in the past, our fortunes are not likely to improve unless we get good lawyers to represent us. Mr. Rajappa's presence in court on our behalf has made an obvious difference to our case.
But take a look at the legal forces whistled up by the opposition: several retired Supreme Court judges, two former Chief Justices... and the lowest fee paid by Prasar Bharati to their lawyer per hearing is Rs.1 lakh. That's probably our entire legal budget.
Sajan
CVC probe into Prasar legal bill
Nagendar Sharma and Chetan Chauhan, Hindustan Times
New Delhi, August 20, 2009
Doordarshan (DD) paid Rs 4.25 crore (Rs 42.5 million) to government law officers for appearing in court cases during the last two years, recording a six-time increase in a year.
At a board meeting on Tuesday, the apex decision-making body for DD and All India Radio, Prasar Bharati, asked the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) to probe the “payment of exorbitant fees”.
The board was informed that the amount was paid to government lawyers since 2007 till June this year, while between 2004 and 2007, DD’s annual legal expenditure was only around Rs 40 lakh (Rs 4 million).
The DD documents, in possession of Hindustan Times, said this violated the rule on prescribed fees for law officers hired by the organisation.
But CEO of Prasar Bharti B.S. Lalli said that the payments were as per rules.
The Prasar Bharati board prescribed fees for a government lawyer is Rs 4,500 per hearing, whereas the documents show that the lowest amount paid was Rs 1 lakh.
The board’s decision to probe the payment was made on a complaint by DD director-general Aruna Sharma, who said six law officers were paid Rs 1.10 crore in cases related to shutting out some private channels from the DD’s direct-to-home (DTH) service.
“So much money was spent to defend such a trivial issue,” said a DD official, not willing to be identified.
Prasar Bharati board chairman Arun Bhatnagar confirmed that the matter had been referred to the CVC for a probe. But Lalli said the probe decision was illegal since the agenda was only for the information of the board.
He said, “Three members of the board have also challenged the way the agenda item (on exorbitant fees) was introduced in the meeting.”
The documents presented before the board showed several former Supreme Court judges, including two former Chief Justices, as beneficiaries of the Rs 4.5 crore payment.
The law ministry, however, said autonomous organisations were free to hire top law officers, whose salary is paid by the government. “Every department has a fixed criterion and we don’t interfere on the fees issue,” said a senior law ministry official.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/CVC-probe-into-Prasar-legal-bill/H1-Article1-445359.aspx
But take a look at the legal forces whistled up by the opposition: several retired Supreme Court judges, two former Chief Justices... and the lowest fee paid by Prasar Bharati to their lawyer per hearing is Rs.1 lakh. That's probably our entire legal budget.
Sajan
CVC probe into Prasar legal bill
Nagendar Sharma and Chetan Chauhan, Hindustan Times
New Delhi, August 20, 2009
Doordarshan (DD) paid Rs 4.25 crore (Rs 42.5 million) to government law officers for appearing in court cases during the last two years, recording a six-time increase in a year.
At a board meeting on Tuesday, the apex decision-making body for DD and All India Radio, Prasar Bharati, asked the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) to probe the “payment of exorbitant fees”.
The board was informed that the amount was paid to government lawyers since 2007 till June this year, while between 2004 and 2007, DD’s annual legal expenditure was only around Rs 40 lakh (Rs 4 million).
The DD documents, in possession of Hindustan Times, said this violated the rule on prescribed fees for law officers hired by the organisation.
But CEO of Prasar Bharti B.S. Lalli said that the payments were as per rules.
The Prasar Bharati board prescribed fees for a government lawyer is Rs 4,500 per hearing, whereas the documents show that the lowest amount paid was Rs 1 lakh.
The board’s decision to probe the payment was made on a complaint by DD director-general Aruna Sharma, who said six law officers were paid Rs 1.10 crore in cases related to shutting out some private channels from the DD’s direct-to-home (DTH) service.
“So much money was spent to defend such a trivial issue,” said a DD official, not willing to be identified.
Prasar Bharati board chairman Arun Bhatnagar confirmed that the matter had been referred to the CVC for a probe. But Lalli said the probe decision was illegal since the agenda was only for the information of the board.
He said, “Three members of the board have also challenged the way the agenda item (on exorbitant fees) was introduced in the meeting.”
The documents presented before the board showed several former Supreme Court judges, including two former Chief Justices, as beneficiaries of the Rs 4.5 crore payment.
The law ministry, however, said autonomous organisations were free to hire top law officers, whose salary is paid by the government. “Every department has a fixed criterion and we don’t interfere on the fees issue,” said a senior law ministry official.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/CVC-probe-into-Prasar-legal-bill/H1-Article1-445359.aspx
Thursday, August 20, 2009
THANK YOU ALL..!!!!!!
Thanks. We received feed back from UPSC that in view of the many telegrams recieved from different parts of the country, UPSC has asked the Ministry for clarifcation.
regards,
Jose
regards,
Jose
Friday, August 14, 2009
ABOVE ALL GOD WAS KIND TO US.....
Dear All,
Yes indeed we were lucky to get hold of Sh.Rajappa. We desperately needed a good, strong service lawyer with the temperament to push our point through.
AUPO and PSWA were strategising together on how to handle the issue. The PSWA President, Pramod Mehta took us to Sh. Rajappa. Pramod had been following his performance in CAT and recommended that it was his conviction that Sh. Rajappa was a suitable choice for us.
PSWA's Lawyer Sh. M.K.Bharadwaj is also a sharp and astute lawyer , who is respected by the CAT Bench.
With Rajappa and Bharadwaj working together , and supporting each other, the synergy was apparent.
The evidence they were able to show in court was strong. The advocates did a very good job. They got assistance and support from Amlan,Pramod and myself .
Our people were there to support us with their physical presence in court. This also gives the lawyers emotional strength too.
The support and encouragement that we have got form all of you have helped us to go on.
Above all God was kind to us.
But this battle is by no way over.
So we cannot afford to let our guard down....
Jose Mathew
Yes indeed we were lucky to get hold of Sh.Rajappa. We desperately needed a good, strong service lawyer with the temperament to push our point through.
AUPO and PSWA were strategising together on how to handle the issue. The PSWA President, Pramod Mehta took us to Sh. Rajappa. Pramod had been following his performance in CAT and recommended that it was his conviction that Sh. Rajappa was a suitable choice for us.
PSWA's Lawyer Sh. M.K.Bharadwaj is also a sharp and astute lawyer , who is respected by the CAT Bench.
With Rajappa and Bharadwaj working together , and supporting each other, the synergy was apparent.
The evidence they were able to show in court was strong. The advocates did a very good job. They got assistance and support from Amlan,Pramod and myself .
Our people were there to support us with their physical presence in court. This also gives the lawyers emotional strength too.
The support and encouragement that we have got form all of you have helped us to go on.
Above all God was kind to us.
But this battle is by no way over.
So we cannot afford to let our guard down....
Jose Mathew
Thursday, August 13, 2009
MODIFIED TELEGRAM
in view of the court direction......
Those who are still to send the telegram to UPSC , may send the modified telegram.
TELEGRAM
SECRETARY
UPSC
SHAHJAHAN ROAD
NEWDELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH OF CAT ORDERED ON 12th AUGUST 2009 DG, AIR AND DG DOORDARSHAN TO FILE AFFIDAVIT BY 31st AUGUST 2009 CERTIFYING REGULAR SERVICE OF PERSONS SHOWN IN ELIGIBILITY LIST SENT TO UPSC FOR REVIEW DPC FOR JTS OF IBPS (. )
LIST SENT BY DG AIR AND MIB VIOLATES STATUTORY RULES AND SHOWS DATE OF ENGAGEMENT ON CONTRACT AS DATE OF REGULAR APPOINTMENT IN THE GRADE (.)
ELIGIBLE PERSONS LEFT OUT AND MANY INELIGIBLE INCLUDED (.)
LIST PREPARED WITHOUT CORRECTIONS MADE IN PSWA CASE (.)
.
(Please mention name of person, designation and station)
Those who are still to send the telegram to UPSC , may send the modified telegram.
TELEGRAM
SECRETARY
UPSC
SHAHJAHAN ROAD
NEWDELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH OF CAT ORDERED ON 12th AUGUST 2009 DG, AIR AND DG DOORDARSHAN TO FILE AFFIDAVIT BY 31st AUGUST 2009 CERTIFYING REGULAR SERVICE OF PERSONS SHOWN IN ELIGIBILITY LIST SENT TO UPSC FOR REVIEW DPC FOR JTS OF IBPS (. )
LIST SENT BY DG AIR AND MIB VIOLATES STATUTORY RULES AND SHOWS DATE OF ENGAGEMENT ON CONTRACT AS DATE OF REGULAR APPOINTMENT IN THE GRADE (.)
ELIGIBLE PERSONS LEFT OUT AND MANY INELIGIBLE INCLUDED (.)
LIST PREPARED WITHOUT CORRECTIONS MADE IN PSWA CASE (.)
.
(Please mention name of person, designation and station)
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
KUDOS TO AMLAN, JOSE, Mr.SAMBIYAL, ,Mr.S.N.SINGH AND OTHERS FOR THEIR TIRELESS EFFORTS..
HEY HEARD ABOUT COURT'S ORDERS TODAY!!!!!!!!!!!
KUDOS TO AMLAN, JOSE, Mr.SAMBIYAL, ,Mr.S.N.SINGH AND OTHERS FOR THEIR TIRELESS EFFORTS..
OUR SPECIAL THANKS FROM EACH MEMBER OF AUPO TO Mr.S. RAJAPPA (our learned Advocate) WHO BROUGHT US SOMETHING WHICH WE WERE FIGHTING FOR 9 YEARS...
THANK-YOU SO MUCH SIR BUT THE BATTLE STILL IS NOT FINALLY WON...
WE NEED YOUR HELP TILL VICTORY...
DEAR FRIENDS,WE ALL HAVE TO BE UNITED UNTILL WE REACH OUR DESTINATION...
LETS EACH OF US DO THE BEST WE CAN UPTO OUR OPTIMUM CAPACITIES AND CAPABILITIES...
ALL THE BEST.
WE WILL SURELY WIN...
MEENU KHARE
KUDOS TO AMLAN, JOSE, Mr.SAMBIYAL, ,Mr.S.N.SINGH AND OTHERS FOR THEIR TIRELESS EFFORTS..
OUR SPECIAL THANKS FROM EACH MEMBER OF AUPO TO Mr.S. RAJAPPA (our learned Advocate) WHO BROUGHT US SOMETHING WHICH WE WERE FIGHTING FOR 9 YEARS...
THANK-YOU SO MUCH SIR BUT THE BATTLE STILL IS NOT FINALLY WON...
WE NEED YOUR HELP TILL VICTORY...
DEAR FRIENDS,WE ALL HAVE TO BE UNITED UNTILL WE REACH OUR DESTINATION...
LETS EACH OF US DO THE BEST WE CAN UPTO OUR OPTIMUM CAPACITIES AND CAPABILITIES...
ALL THE BEST.
WE WILL SURELY WIN...
MEENU KHARE
Monday, August 10, 2009
MOST IMPORTANT !!!!
Dear All,
Orders from court regarding submitting of affidavit by the department not on the cause list of CAT today. Discussed with Lawyer. He says, it could take maximum a week for the order to come out and has told us not to worry at all as any action he says taken by the department now using the wrong list can only be done at their own peril.
However, in order to avert the slightest possible risk of the UPSC going ahead with the review DPC on the basis of the faulty eligibitlity list, AUPO and PSWA have decided that a telegram should be sent by each one of us to UPSC Secretary .
This must be done most urgently.
Copy of sample telegram attached.
Sambyal , Jose and Pramod Mehta
SECRETARY
UPSC
SHAHJAHAN ROAD
NEWDELHI
ELIGIBILITY LIST FOR REVIEW DPC FOR JTS OF IBPS SENT BY DG AIR AND MIB VIOLATES STATUTORY RULES (.)
LIST SHOWS DATE OF ENGAGEMENT ON CONTRACT AS DATE OF REGULAR APPOINTMENT IN THE GRADE (.)
ELIGIBLE PERSONS LEFT OUT AND MANY INELIGIBLE INCLUDED (.)
LIST PREPARED WITHOUT CORRECTIONS MADE IN PSWA CASE (.)
REQUEST HOLD REVIEW DPC ONLY AFTER VERIFCATION.
(Please mention name of person, designation and station)
Orders from court regarding submitting of affidavit by the department not on the cause list of CAT today. Discussed with Lawyer. He says, it could take maximum a week for the order to come out and has told us not to worry at all as any action he says taken by the department now using the wrong list can only be done at their own peril.
However, in order to avert the slightest possible risk of the UPSC going ahead with the review DPC on the basis of the faulty eligibitlity list, AUPO and PSWA have decided that a telegram should be sent by each one of us to UPSC Secretary .
This must be done most urgently.
Copy of sample telegram attached.
Sambyal , Jose and Pramod Mehta
SECRETARY
UPSC
SHAHJAHAN ROAD
NEWDELHI
ELIGIBILITY LIST FOR REVIEW DPC FOR JTS OF IBPS SENT BY DG AIR AND MIB VIOLATES STATUTORY RULES (.)
LIST SHOWS DATE OF ENGAGEMENT ON CONTRACT AS DATE OF REGULAR APPOINTMENT IN THE GRADE (.)
ELIGIBLE PERSONS LEFT OUT AND MANY INELIGIBLE INCLUDED (.)
LIST PREPARED WITHOUT CORRECTIONS MADE IN PSWA CASE (.)
REQUEST HOLD REVIEW DPC ONLY AFTER VERIFCATION.
(Please mention name of person, designation and station)
Friday, August 7, 2009
GOOD NEWS AT LAST !!!!
Dear All,
Today was a good day.
It was our day at last.
To tell you frankly, we were very anxious .
The contempt matter was supposed to come up in the morning. Eventually all cases were heard except ours.
Ours was the only case in the afternoon.
The Government tried to establish that our objections to the eligibility list was beyond the original judgment - which was to undertake a review DPC to the IBPS by giving Programme Executives the options for production posts also.
Our Senior Lawyer gave a brilliant performance today.
He was able to successfully establish that the judgment said that the review DPC is to be done as per service rules.
The service rules say eligibility list has to be prepared on the basis of three years of regular service.
The eligibility list prepared by the department was full of errors. It showed hundreds of ineligible contractual persons whose date of entry into contractual service was shown as regular service.
We also pointed out how 101 ineligible persons rejected by UPSC in 1986 were now in the list and that too above 1977 UPSC recruited Pexs.
Our lawyer spoke of the agony of our persons who were retiring without promotions.
The financial losses, the pressures in terms of family.. etc..
Our lawyer said we were willing to withdraw the contempt if the Dept was able to show us legal regularisation orders of the ineligible people.
The Judges finally said that they will issue an order on Monday asking the Department to file an affidavit stating that the persons included in the list are all as per rules.
The Dept is in a tight position now. Their lawyers and the administrative staff are looking decidedly unhappy.
We are elated of course.
Let us wait for the courts order which we will hopefully receive by Monday evening.
Meanwhile, our efforts with the MPs and VIPs must continue.
We cannot afford to relax.
Stopping for now.
More in next.
regards
Jose.
Oh just wanted to add two important things .
Our Lawyer was ably supported by Pramod Mehta's lawyer too.
We also as applicants added our two bit worth to add strength to what the lawyers had to say.
And today , we had quite a lot of our people in court.
That makes a difference.
Seeing a large group of affected people has an impact on the judges too. The energy contributed is vital too.
Jose.
Today was a good day.
It was our day at last.
To tell you frankly, we were very anxious .
The contempt matter was supposed to come up in the morning. Eventually all cases were heard except ours.
Ours was the only case in the afternoon.
The Government tried to establish that our objections to the eligibility list was beyond the original judgment - which was to undertake a review DPC to the IBPS by giving Programme Executives the options for production posts also.
Our Senior Lawyer gave a brilliant performance today.
He was able to successfully establish that the judgment said that the review DPC is to be done as per service rules.
The service rules say eligibility list has to be prepared on the basis of three years of regular service.
The eligibility list prepared by the department was full of errors. It showed hundreds of ineligible contractual persons whose date of entry into contractual service was shown as regular service.
We also pointed out how 101 ineligible persons rejected by UPSC in 1986 were now in the list and that too above 1977 UPSC recruited Pexs.
Our lawyer spoke of the agony of our persons who were retiring without promotions.
The financial losses, the pressures in terms of family.. etc..
Our lawyer said we were willing to withdraw the contempt if the Dept was able to show us legal regularisation orders of the ineligible people.
The Judges finally said that they will issue an order on Monday asking the Department to file an affidavit stating that the persons included in the list are all as per rules.
The Dept is in a tight position now. Their lawyers and the administrative staff are looking decidedly unhappy.
We are elated of course.
Let us wait for the courts order which we will hopefully receive by Monday evening.
Meanwhile, our efforts with the MPs and VIPs must continue.
We cannot afford to relax.
Stopping for now.
More in next.
regards
Jose.
Oh just wanted to add two important things .
Our Lawyer was ably supported by Pramod Mehta's lawyer too.
We also as applicants added our two bit worth to add strength to what the lawyers had to say.
And today , we had quite a lot of our people in court.
That makes a difference.
Seeing a large group of affected people has an impact on the judges too. The energy contributed is vital too.
Jose.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Thursday, July 30, 2009
NEWS
DEAR FRIENDS,
K.P DHANAPALAN,M.P REPRESENTING CHALAKKUDY IN KERALA TODAY,(29.7.09)
FORCEFULLY PRESENTED OUR WOES AS A SPECIAL MENTION IN LOK SABHA. HE SPECIFICALLY POINTED OUT THE PLIGHT OF UPSC-RECRUITED PROGRAMME EXECUTIVES OF AIR & DD: THE DETAILS OF HIS SPEECH WILL BE MAILED SOON.
REGARDS,
D.PRADEEP KUMAR
K.P DHANAPALAN,M.P REPRESENTING CHALAKKUDY IN KERALA TODAY,(29.7.09)
FORCEFULLY PRESENTED OUR WOES AS A SPECIAL MENTION IN LOK SABHA. HE SPECIFICALLY POINTED OUT THE PLIGHT OF UPSC-RECRUITED PROGRAMME EXECUTIVES OF AIR & DD: THE DETAILS OF HIS SPEECH WILL BE MAILED SOON.
REGARDS,
D.PRADEEP KUMAR
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
AUPO'S CASE
Dear everyone,
I feel that even in these final moments of our battle only 1/10th of the AUPO members are actively involved. The rest are, I am ashamed to say, mere spectators.
If each member can get one member of Parliament to speak for our cause it will be a big achievement. For such a pro-active role one doesn't have to wait for the commands of the Central leadership. Just jump into the battlefield and do what best one can do.
K.M.Narendran
I feel that even in these final moments of our battle only 1/10th of the AUPO members are actively involved. The rest are, I am ashamed to say, mere spectators.
If each member can get one member of Parliament to speak for our cause it will be a big achievement. For such a pro-active role one doesn't have to wait for the commands of the Central leadership. Just jump into the battlefield and do what best one can do.
K.M.Narendran
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
AUPO'S CASE
1. Since the case was decided 5 years ago, we cannot technically call it a final hearing even if the court referred to it in that manner.
2.What we are trying to establish right now is that statutory rules are not be followed. The statutory rules clearly says that eligibility list has to be prepared on the basis of regular service. The list prepared by the Dept uses date of entry into contractual service.
3. Secondly corrections made in the PEXs list from 1983 ( where Naik and batch have been reverted have not been included in the list.
4. An email has been sent on behalf of AUPO to all in our contact list . This e mail details what we said in our affidavit to the court in our hearing today. (which is to be heard on 30th July at 2 p.m). Those who receive it please forward it to others.
5. I would also like to say a couple of more things -
a) Many of our Association members (including those on our contact list are not members of our blog. They need to join the blog as members.
b) Delhi based mebers should refrain from calling up to find out what happened in court. This is JUST not done. I find it highly objectionable. It is their duty to be in court along with us. The energy when a group of people stand together is huge.
c) All members should at least now use their sources (if they have any) , just as they would if they were transfered etc. I have no doubt that our opponents have been using their "sources" and links to make phone calls to senior officials in the Ministry, Department etc to save them form reversion, inspite of us having the advantage in terms of favourable court judgments and statutory rules. So what are we waiting for.......?
regards
Jose Jude Mathew
2.What we are trying to establish right now is that statutory rules are not be followed. The statutory rules clearly says that eligibility list has to be prepared on the basis of regular service. The list prepared by the Dept uses date of entry into contractual service.
3. Secondly corrections made in the PEXs list from 1983 ( where Naik and batch have been reverted have not been included in the list.
4. An email has been sent on behalf of AUPO to all in our contact list . This e mail details what we said in our affidavit to the court in our hearing today. (which is to be heard on 30th July at 2 p.m). Those who receive it please forward it to others.
5. I would also like to say a couple of more things -
a) Many of our Association members (including those on our contact list are not members of our blog. They need to join the blog as members.
b) Delhi based mebers should refrain from calling up to find out what happened in court. This is JUST not done. I find it highly objectionable. It is their duty to be in court along with us. The energy when a group of people stand together is huge.
c) All members should at least now use their sources (if they have any) , just as they would if they were transfered etc. I have no doubt that our opponents have been using their "sources" and links to make phone calls to senior officials in the Ministry, Department etc to save them form reversion, inspite of us having the advantage in terms of favourable court judgments and statutory rules. So what are we waiting for.......?
regards
Jose Jude Mathew
Monday, July 27, 2009
AUPO'S CASE
DEAR FRIENDS, THE FINAL HEARING OF AUPO'S CASE IS ON 30/7/09...LET US WAIT & PRAY FOR A POSITIVE RESULT !!!!!!!
Friday, July 3, 2009
PRESS RELEASE
Nationwide protests by UPSC recruited Programme Officers of AIR and Doordarshan.
New Delhi: 2rd July
The Principal Bench of CAT New Delhi today expressed its unhappiness that the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting and Director General, All India Radio had not complied with its order calling for review DPC to the Indian Broadcasting Service of All India Radio and Doordarshan for more than five years. In their order today, the Tribunal stated that it was upset by the non-compliance and asked for an affidavit on action taken to be filed by tomorrow i.e. 3rd July 2009. The Hon’ble Bench also stated that they would be constrained to take coercive action if compliance was not done by the next date of hearing on Monday July 6th 2009.
Meanwhile, hundreds of Direct Recruit Programme officers of the two public service broadcasters, All India Radio and Doordarshan held a nationwide peaceful protest dharna including wearing black badges, organizing lunch hour gate meetings at major AIR and Doordarshan kendras today in order to express their anguish at the five year delay in implementing the court orders for review DPC.
A spokesperson of the Joint forum of the Association of the UPSC Recruited Programme Officers of AIR & Doordarshan (AUPO) and Programme Staff Welfare Association (PSWA) the two Associations spearheading the protest said that there is an unprecedented situation prevailing in the two organisations where hundreds of Programme Officers recruited by the Union Public Service Commission through national level selections are languishing for 20-28 years in their entry level posts without receiving a single promotion in their entire career.
The Associations pointed out that recent RTI documents show that the delay in implementing the review DPC is directly linked to the fact that a large number of ineligible persons have been inducted into the regular programme Cadre by violating to the statutory rules. These illegal appointees have been given further multiple promotions at the expense of the regularly recruited officers and are today occupying very senior positions in the organisations. The DPC is being delayed only to protect these illegal appointees.
The Association of UPSC Recruited Programme Officers of AIR and Doordarshan and the Programme Staff Welfare Association have demanded a fast track enquiry into the whole issue and withdrawal of all administrative powers from illegal officers as a minimum confidence building measure. The Associations have pointed out that in future the UPSC recruited Officers will not be taking instructions or orders from any illegally appointed person. If the grievances are not redressed in a time bound manner, the protests would be further intensified including stoppage of all production related activities.
.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
SATYAGRAHA BY AUPO & PSWA
SATYAGRAHA UPDATE FOR 2ND JULY 2009
Dear friends,
In view of AUPO & PSWA co-ordination meeting minutes dated 16th June, 09 and subsequent press release demanding justice in terms of conducting review DPC with properly prepared eligibility list (by including only eligible persons as per Statutory rules), DG:AIR administration invited representatives of both the associations today to discuss review DPC matters.
PSWA & AUPO reiterated their demand for including only eligible persons and removal of illegal recruits and conducting of review DPC immediately. As usual DG: AIR administration informed the progress status. Though there is some progress in the matter, both the associations have expressed unhappiness with the level of progress. Both the associations have reviewed the situation and decided that the delay in this matter will be strongly presented in court in the contempt hearing tomorrow i.e. on 2nd July, 09. The Satyagraha Dharna will be by wearing black badges by the members/all affected programme staff on 2nd July, 2009 to express their anguish against gross injustice done to legally recruited Programme Officers. Arrangements made for peaceful lunch hour Gate meeting at some major stations may continue as planned.
Two posters: - One asking four key questions and the other pressing for three demands maybe pasted at appropriate places.
1ST JULY 2009 AUPO & PSWA
CAN DG: AIR, MIB & UPSC JUSTIFY:-
1. WHY UPSC RECRUITED PROGRAMME OFFICERS LANGUISH AT THEIR ENTRY LEVEL POSTS FOR 20-27 YRS?
2. WHY THEY SERVE UNDER PERSONS ENGAGED ON CONTRACT WHO WERE ILLEGALLY INDUCTED IN THE PROGRAMME CADRE?
3. WHY A REVIEW DPC ORDERED BY THE COURT IS DELAYED FOR FIVE YRS?
4. WHY STATUTORY RULES ARE GROSSLY VIOLATED???
AUPO & PSWA
demands
1. conduct review dpc immediately for ibps by including only eligible persons.
2. order enquiry on large scale encadrement/recruitment/promotion of illegal recruits.
3. rectify violation of sc/st quota for promotion for the last 27 yrs.
aupo &pswa
Dear friends,
In view of AUPO & PSWA co-ordination meeting minutes dated 16th June, 09 and subsequent press release demanding justice in terms of conducting review DPC with properly prepared eligibility list (by including only eligible persons as per Statutory rules), DG:AIR administration invited representatives of both the associations today to discuss review DPC matters.
PSWA & AUPO reiterated their demand for including only eligible persons and removal of illegal recruits and conducting of review DPC immediately. As usual DG: AIR administration informed the progress status. Though there is some progress in the matter, both the associations have expressed unhappiness with the level of progress. Both the associations have reviewed the situation and decided that the delay in this matter will be strongly presented in court in the contempt hearing tomorrow i.e. on 2nd July, 09. The Satyagraha Dharna will be by wearing black badges by the members/all affected programme staff on 2nd July, 2009 to express their anguish against gross injustice done to legally recruited Programme Officers. Arrangements made for peaceful lunch hour Gate meeting at some major stations may continue as planned.
Two posters: - One asking four key questions and the other pressing for three demands maybe pasted at appropriate places.
1ST JULY 2009 AUPO & PSWA
CAN DG: AIR, MIB & UPSC JUSTIFY:-
1. WHY UPSC RECRUITED PROGRAMME OFFICERS LANGUISH AT THEIR ENTRY LEVEL POSTS FOR 20-27 YRS?
2. WHY THEY SERVE UNDER PERSONS ENGAGED ON CONTRACT WHO WERE ILLEGALLY INDUCTED IN THE PROGRAMME CADRE?
3. WHY A REVIEW DPC ORDERED BY THE COURT IS DELAYED FOR FIVE YRS?
4. WHY STATUTORY RULES ARE GROSSLY VIOLATED???
AUPO & PSWA
demands
1. conduct review dpc immediately for ibps by including only eligible persons.
2. order enquiry on large scale encadrement/recruitment/promotion of illegal recruits.
3. rectify violation of sc/st quota for promotion for the last 27 yrs.
aupo &pswa
Friday, June 19, 2009
PSWA & AUPO - JOINT MEETING
Minutes of the Co-ordination Committee Meeting of the Association of UPSC recruited Programme Officers of AIR& Doordarshan (AUPO) and the Programme Staff Welfare Association(PSWA )held on 16th June 2009 in Broadcasting House, New Delhi.
An emergency meeting of PSWA and AUPO was held in All India Radio Broadcasting House, New Delhi on 16th June 2009. The meeting was held in view of a large number of direct recruit Programme Officers from PEX upwards all over the country expressing their deep anguish over the inordinate delay in holding of the review DPCs and DPCs for the JTS grade of IB(P)S as per the directions of the Hon’ble Courts . The meeting also discussed that the delay in conducting review DPC/DPCs was directly linked to the large scale recruitment/promotion scam in the Programme cadre of All India Radio and Doordarshan.
Members across the board expressed their deep indignation and unequivocally condemned the fact that Programme Executives recruited by UPSC have not got a single promotion for 20-27 years and are being forced to serve under persons engaged on contract and illegally inducted into programme cadre in violation of all norms and statutory rules.
Some vital documents obtained through RTI recently by the Associations pointing to a full blown recruitment /promotion scam in the department were also placed before the members. The documents show how hundreds of illegal appointees such as present day Science Officers etc (serving as i/c DDG ) were inducted into the programme cadre in violation of the Cabinet Approved MIB Regularisation Scheme of 1982 and the Statutory Recruitment Rules.
Members expressed their anxiety with the pace of progress in resolving the issue, in spite of some interactions/meetings being held at the highest levels of Administration and their positive intentions to remove illegalities. It was also observed that some subordinate officials are adopting obstructionist and dilatory tactics to delay the efforts to resolve the matter as they appeared to have a nexus with the illegal appointees.
In view of the above, Members decided that this long term injustice should not be allowed to continue and the following decisions were taken unanimously:
a. It was resolved that if there was no concrete progress to resolve the illegal interpolations of ineligible contractual persons into the seniority lists of the Programme Executives and the encadered Staff Artist before the next date of the Contempt Petition –i.e 2nd July 2009 – a three day “Calling Attention” sit in Satyagraha Dharna would be conducted at all major selected Capital Stations to coincide with the Budget Session of the Parliament. Hon’ble Members of Parliament would also be requested to raise the issue during Zero Hour.
b. Representatives from different parts of the country shall also congregate in New Delhi and sit on fast to peacefully register the protest.
c. It was resolved that, meanwhile joint delegations of both the Associations shall meet CEO, Secretary, Minister for Information & Broadcasting, Ministers of State for Information & Broadcasting, Members of Parliament etc, to seek their urgent intervention in the matter.
d. It was also resolved that, as a Confidence Building Measure, DG,AIR , CEO and Secretary(I&B) should be requested to take concrete steps to remove persons illegally interpolated in the Programme Cadre to ensure that the law of the land prevails .As an interim, all administrative powers should be immediately withdrawn from those illegal appointees holding high and senior positions in the Programme cadre, pending the conduct of review DPCs, so as to avoid abuse of authority .
e. Failing which members will be constrained to not take any orders, instructions etc from these officers and shall not submit their ACRs etc. to these illegal appointees.
f. It was resolved to request the Deptt and the Ministry to revoke all DPCs from STS up to SAG Production grades of IBPS conducted after March 26th 2004, as these DPCs failed to include those from Programme Executives cadre who are eligible as per statutory rules for Production posts of IBPS and as held by the Principal Bench of CAT on 26th March 2004.
g. It was resolved to request the DG, CEO and Secretary to fast track an enquiry for finding out the facts and circumstances including the conspiracy and collusion angles leading to the illegal inclusion and the continuous further elevations to higher posts of a large number of erstwhile contractual employees who were not covered by the statutory rule and whose appointments were outside the purview of Art 309.
h. It was resolved that CEO should be requested to take disciplinary action against officials who had been /or are adopting obstructionist and dilatory tactics.
i. It was decided that , the issue of recruitment scam shall be taken up with the PMO, Members of the consultative committee, CVC and CBI.
j. It was also resolved that the matter be highlighted through Press and media channels to draw the attention of whole nation to the unprecedented plight of the DR Officers of the Public Service broadcasters.
k. Members also decided that the DoP&T, Cabinet Secretary to be approached to request that pending the conducting of the review DPC/DPCs and all consequential benefits being given to the Programme Executives, no cadre review should be done for the IB(P)S and the recent scheme of parity with the IAS should also not be implemented as these would further institutionalize benefits to the persons illegally holding higher posts.
L.S. Bajpayee,Convenor, AUPO
Pramod Mehtaa President, PSWA
Saturday, June 6, 2009
AUPO'S CLARIFICATIONS
I.) 1. The last issue of PSA’s Broad vision dated 12th May 2009 has some references to AUPO . For the purpose of not only AUPO members , but also every one else in the programme cadre, some clarifications are required. An attempt is made here to explain matters in simple lay man terms so that everyone understands the issues.
2. The first question that needs to be answered is whether there is any truth in AUPO stating that the PSA has contributed to violating and circumventing the statutory rules ? Or are we making wild unsubstantiated allegations?
3.Well as everyone knows, until 2000, every AUPO member was a PSA member. Neither AUPO or PSWA existed. However, there was wide spread discontent among UPSC PEXS familiar with the Rules. Many times, gross violations of the Statutory Rules were pointed out to the PSA leadership . In the absence of any support by the Association, individuals like Maya Israni , Chetan Naik , S.D. Shastri and Sachidanand Singh went to the court on their own. If PSA had shown the sense of responsibility and fairness to ensure that statutory rules were followed, AUPO would never have been formed. It is now upto the PSA to explain why they ignored the violations of statutory rules , though it harmed the PEXs and created a situation where PEXs have not been promoted for 27 years. This has also affected the promotions of Trexs and Production Assistants as they are behind Pexs in the queue.
4. The sequence of the gross violations of the IBPS statutory rules, PSA’s role in the matter , and how it caused huge damage to the Pexs , and how the PSA action or inaction gave illegal benefits to Producers is explained below.
5. According to the IBPS Rules notified on 5th November 1990, Pexs are eligible for both Management and Production. Producers are however eligible only for Production and not for Management. The PSA from 1990 onwards refused to acknowledge that as per rules , Pexs are eligible for Production posts of IBPS. All Production posts were given exclusively to Producers. In fact ,the PSA even wrote a letter to the Ministry that PEXs were not eligible for Production posts of IBPS. Some of you may have seen this letter in one of the old Broadvision issues.
6. In 2000, a review DPC was conducted to the JTS posts of IBPS. Many senior PEXs were reverted . Many of you may remember how Naramihacharyalu, Sahu , Devika Moktan, Upendra Raina, Subramanium etc were reverted. AUPO repeatedly pointed out that since Pexs are eligible for Production as per rules, these persons have to be considered for both Production and Management and cannot be reverted. PSA however refused to support AUPO at this crucial juncture , on the most important issue affecting the Pexs – that Pexs were not being considered eligible for Production posts of IBPS.
7. AUPO was then forced to take the matter to court. We filed a petition (O.A.No.399/2001) stating that as per IBPS rules , PEXs are eligible for Production posts. AUPO also made the PSA a party to the case, so that PSA would be forced to take a stand on the matter. However, PSA did not bother to come to court or to file any reply. AUPO also transferred to Delhi, and clubbed along with the AUPO case, a case filed by Sh. Sachidananad Singh, an UPSC Pex on the same issue. Both matters were argued by AUPO’s lawyers and decided together.
8. When AUPO won the IBPS case in March 2004, the PSA wrote in Broad vision that the JTS Production case has been won, without mentioning that it was AUPO who had won the case.
9. It is important that everyone understands that in the first place, AUPO had to file a case stating that PEXs were eligible for production posts , only because PSA had not supported the legitimate rights of the PEXs. In order to keep the Producers in its fold, PSA supported the blatant violation of the statutory rules for 14 years . (1990 to 2000) and (2000 to 2004). What was the need for AUPO to go to court, if the PSA had taken a right and just stance then?
10.The PSA’s convoluted stance on this important matter is the single reason why Production posts lay vacant all these years. The gate for Production posts was illegally closed to the PEXs. This is the reason why a PEX remains unpromoted today for 20 to 27 years.. Since Pexs were not considered eligible for the Production posts in IBPS , the PEXS were denied promotion though hundreds of posts lay vacant. Because of this basic violation of the rules, extremely junior Producers were promoted ahead of senior PEXs. Since, Pexs were not promoted , those behind them in the queue- the Trexs and Production Assistants also were affected. This is the reason why we have i/c PEXs and ad hoc Pexs today.
11.The PSA cannot deny that they were repeatedly approached by UPSC PEXS before AUPO was formed ( and even after AUPO was formed ) to help resolve the matter . The PSA cannot deny that they ignored the pleas that PEXs were always eligible for Production posts as per the IBPS statutory rules. The PSA cannot deny that though they were made party to the AUPO case, they refused to attend court, or reply, or support AUPO in this vital matter.
12. The PSA cannot also deny that they came out in support of the matter (and that too briefly) after AUPO won the case in March 2004. First , the PSA claimed in Broad vision that the IBPS case had been won, without specifying that AUPO had won the case. Later on , when news spread round the country about AUPO’s role in the matter, the PSA leadership came up with the drama of an agitation plan , so as to share the credit for conduct the review DPC.
13.Since, the eligibility of Production posts for PEXS matter was something for which AUPO had been fighting for, AUPO joined the agitation plank and stood on the same platform as PSA.
14. Many PSA members and office bearers came from different parts of the country to sincerely participate in what was a monumental breakthrough for the PEXS. These persons will remember how negotiations/discussions took place in the room of Sh. Jaipal Reddy who was then Minister.
15. The PSA had put three demands , over ruling AUPO’s plea that we should have only a single point agenda –i.e - the quick conduct of the review DPC. AUPO feared that the main matter could get diluted.
16. Sh. K.S. Sharma, the then CEO tried to deflect the situation by saying “ we will now move on to point no 2 and 3 on the list of demands which was put forward by the PSA. ” AUPO insisted that point No.1 – the quick conduct of review DPC was the most important agenda and was able to bring the discussion back to the primary issue.
17. Those who were in the room of the Minister that day will remember that AUPO , pointed out that
i. the application for review contained an unconnected bunch of fudged papers which had no relation or connection to the IBPS case .
ii. AUPO also committed that if even one para in that bunch of papers/documents had any connection to the IBPS case, we would withdraw the agitation.
iii. As for appealing in the High Court, AUPO argued that the IBPS rules were very clear . The judgment was also very clear. The Pexs were eligible for both Production and Management. In fact there had been no need to file this case at all in the first place. Moreover programmes all over the country were being produced by PEXS. If the Government , over ruling the statutory rules and the judgment wanted to file any review or any appeal , PEXs all over the country would not undertake production until the appeal was decided. They would until then undertake only Management jobs.
18. On being briefed about the statutory rules, the legal position , and genuiness of the matter, the Hon’ble Minister Shri. Jaipal Reddy immediately gave instructions that no appeal needs to be filed and directed for quick implementation of the review DPC as per the court judgment.
19. AUPO would also like to clarify that we were however kept in the dark about the minutes referred to in Broad vision . This is the first time that we are seeing this minutes. Though a copy of the minutes has been marked to us, we were not given a copy of the same and had no idea that such minutes existed until PSA put it on the website. However, regardless what is said in the minutes, what happened in the meeting with the Minister , was witnessed by atleast around 50 PSA members from different parts of the country who were present in the room .
20. As regards, the minutes of the first meeting with Addl. Secretary, S.K. Arora, put on the PSA web site , in the minutes it is repeatedly stated that the PSA President said this…. and the PSA President said that. It is extremely funny that a joint meeting of the Ministry with PSA and AUPO does not have any reference to what AUPO who won the IBPS case said. It is disturbing that the minutes does not reflect our views and though marked to us, has been kept out of our notice so far.
21. The PSA as everyone knows withdrew its agitation plan . (This was done after the PSA leadership made and received behind the scene telephone calls. The agitation /negotiations had not gone the way that some people had imagined it would.) The PSA did not renew the agitation, though the assurances given to us by the Govt regarding quick conduct of the review DPC was not fulfilled.
22. Instead , without undertaking the base level DPC of PEX to JTS, the PSA then supported and contributed to the further regularization of ineligible persons to the higher grades of the STS, JAG, and SAG grade of Production cadre of IBPS. .(i.e Producers who would have been reverted if a review DPC is done as per rules.) This action supported by the PSA, is equivalent to building the first , second and third floor of a building, knowing fully well that the court has ordered the demolition of the ground floor and has directed for the construction of a new building on a fresh foundation .
23. How did the PSA manage to support the regular DPCs to higher posts without doing the JTS level review DPC? Well, the PSA had filed a case pleading for regularization of persons who were on ad hoc posts for a long time. As per rules, persons cannot be continuously placed on ad hoc without doing regular DPC’s. The court hence gave the PSA a favorable verdict. Using this verdict, the PSA filed a contempt case stating that regular DPCs were not being conducted to different levels of the IBPS. The PSA was aware, that by conducting a regular DPC for instance STS of Production, they would be regularizing the Producers and a regular DPC without involving the PEXs was illegal. However, they chose to ignore this illegality . Sensing the damage that PSA was trying to do, AUPO filed an impleadment application in the PSA contempt case. AUPO wanted to point out to the Court that such regularization being done for higher level posts without doing the JTS level review DPC was illegal. The PSA vociferously opposed our impleadment application on the grounds that AUPO was not a party to their regular DPC case. Thus , with the help of the PSA Contempt case, and with the active support of the PSA and Producers , Government regularized the adhoc persons to STS and higher levels .(Producers) .
24. It is important that everyone understands that it was through the efforts and active support of the PSA , that ineligible Producers due for reversion in the JTS review DPC case were further regularized in the STS cadre of IBPS.. This is how the PSA used its contempt case in the regular DPC case to once again damage the PEXs and illegally promote ineligible Producers to STS etc. The direction of the Hon’ble Court in AUPO’s case that PEXs are eligible for IBPS production posts was completely ignored.
25. We would like to ask the PSA how they can justify the regular DPCs for higher posts in STS, JAG of production in the IBPS without including the PEXs? Thanks to the PSA, today there is not even one person from the PEX cadre in the Production cadre from JTS to SAG.
26. The PSA is , we understand, reviving the same contempt petition to conduct regular DPC for DDG level posts. They hope to regularize many ineligible appointees not covered by the statutory rules (such as science officers) as DDGs.
27. The PSA also states in the Broad vision that the problem of stagnation in the PEX and Trex cadre can be removed only if the review DPC to JTS takes place at the earliest. AUPO would also like everyone to understand that the question of stagnation arises only if there are no vacancies. Here , we have plenty of vacancies. A situation of artificially created stagnation has been caused by violation of statutory rules and non inclusion of eligible persons (PEXs) in the DPCs. If a review DPC is conducted as per rules, the artificial stagnation/ structure supported by the PSA will fall down. Station Directors from the staff artists cadre will be reverted. Senior PEXs will get multiple promotions .
28. The PSA says that review DPC is to be done for JTS levels. The PSA tries to claim that regular DPCs have already been done for other levels. The PSA says that such and such number of vacancies are to be filled. Why are these vacancies not being filled? Is AUPO preventing the DPCs from taking place? Everyone knows that AUPO has filed a contempt against Secretary I&B and DG,AIR for not conducting the review DPC and has been fighting hard to implement the judgment. How can anyone even try to suggest that we are trying to obstruct the conduct of the review DPC?
29. The truth is that review DPC is to be done to all posts in JTS, followed by regular DPC’s to all posts in STS, JAG, SAG etc and that too for the last 18 years (from 1990 to the present) . The regular DPCs done (with PSA support from STS onwards ) without undertaking the review DPC to JTS is illegal .
30. Those serving in STS Production and above have been illegally regularized without considering even a single PEX who has been unpromoted for 27 years. These persons are in grave danger of being reverted, if the review DPC is done as per statutory rules. AUPO has all along been fighting for the quick conduct of the review DPC. It is understandable that the Producers may not be interested in conducting a review DPC as per rules. After all, they are only trying to protect their interests. But the role of the PSA to obstructing the conduct of review DPC as per statutory rules and prescribed eligibility conditions is really sad. Their role in trying to protect the Producer’s at the cost of the Pex’s is agonizing. AUPO’s stance is simple. Follow the RULES!
31. To conduct this review DPC , a combined seniority list of Pexs and Producers had been created by the Department. In this list , the date of contractual service of Producers has been shown as regular service and Producers who entered on contract upto 1985 have been placed enbloc over even UPSC recruited Pexs from 1977. Why did the PSA not object to it? Is the PSA not aware of the statutory rules ? Are they not aware of the difference between a regular government servant and a contractual employee? Are they suggesting that date of engagement on contract can be substituted for regular service? The PSA is trying to defend not only this but also the inclusion of non eligible persons in the list?
32. The IBPS rules state that 3 years regular service in the grade of Pex /Producer is required to be eligible for promotion. This eligibility cannot be violated or compromised by anyone.(As on today someone who was engaged on contract in 1984 and was given an option to be regularized as government servant in 1991 is deemed as senior to a 1982/1983 regular UPSC Pex.) This has been done by illegally treating the persons date of engagement on contract as regular service. This review DPC should necessarily correct this irregularity, blatant violation of statutory rules and DOPT norms - something that has also been clarified in umpteen court judgments, including the historic Uma Devi judgment.
33. The PSA should not try to pretend that some order issued by the Ministry or S VII section in DG, AIR in say 1988 or 1991 is sufficient to make all staff artists engaged on contract , regular government servants retrospectively from the date that they first entered into contract.! So any order ,or file notings or pious intentions are not worth the paper it is written on. In the constitutional bench judgment of Uma Devi, the Supreme Court observed in para 5 “ no government order, notification or circular can be substituted for the statutory rules framed under the law”.
34. As you know, Staff Artists were made Government servants by two schemes. The first scheme was the 1982 Scheme. According to the first scheme, erstwhile staff artists engaged on contract before the cut off date of 28-2-1982 could opt to be made Government servants with effect from 6th March 1982 . (So regular government service of the first group of staff artists/artists starts only on 6th March 1982.).
35. A second group of staff artists/ artists were also given the option of becoming government servant according to the second scheme of November 1991. (So the regular government service of the second group of persons obviously can start only in November 1991. )
36. Many of you may have come across the recent DOPT order No. 35034/3/2008-Estt.(D) dated 19th May 2009 which has been issued for Modified ACP Scheme. , If you see para 9 of this order it states that “Service rendered on adhoc/contract basis before regular appointment cannot be taken into account” . Moreover , as pointed out above , there are countless supreme court judgments including the constitutional bench judgment in the Uma Devi case that states the same thing. A persons contractual service cannot be equated as regular government service. What is the PSA’s answer to this? When does the regular service of a contractual person regularized in November 1991 start according to the PSA?
37. What is most important is that persons engaged on contract after 28-2-1982 are not even included in the programme cadre so far as per the existing rules. Some of them are not even staff artists. They were merely engaged on renewable monthly/ six monthly contracts. They are hence not eligible as per rules. The Department has also agreed that as on date these persons are not eligible as per rules.
38. Is the PSA suggesting that the statutory rules should again be violated? What do they mean when they say there are only 3 Science Officers or 97 Producers etc. The PSA simply has to clarify whether these persons are covered by the existing rules or not ? And when do these persons regular service start? The PSA says that these persons have been included in the seniority list for 20 years. They say , that removing these persons (even though they are not eligible and covered by the rules) would become legally complicated. Well, this is a very funny argument. When confronted with the evidence as to why UPSC recruited Pexs eligible as per rules for 2 decades have not received their promotions, the PSA comes up with a funny argument. A review DPC has to be done as per rules. A review DPC is done if eligible persons have been left out /or if ineligible persons have been left out. Since ineligible persons have been included , they must be left out now.
39. The fact is that some persons who were engaged on contract and were made regular government servants some time in 1991 by virtue of some scheme , and are as on date not covered by the statutory rules governing the regular programme cadre have illegally become our superiors and written our CRs. This was done by violating the statutory RRs. Evidence received through RTI etc has been given to the department. Such illegality cannot be permitted to continue. In any case, AUPO or PSA or PSWA , or even the courts , or the Government have no authority to trifle with the statutory rules which were notified by an Act of Parliament.
40. The PSA also suggests in Broadvision that PEXs are suffering and review DPC has been held up because of a string of cases filed on issues like discipline wise promotion and work allocation, seniority list, notification of duties and responsibilities of IB(P) S officers etc. There is absolutely no truth in this statement. The truth is that there is not even a single case holding up the review DPC. None of these cases, mentioned by the PSA stand in the way of conduct of the review DPC.
41. In fact, the Government is under severe pressure because of the contempt filed by AUPO and PSWA for not conducting the review DPC to the IBPS . Even the courts are finding it difficult to show leniency to the Government after five years.
42. The rules prior to the IBPS(i.e the 1984 Group A & B Rules) have also been violated to the disadvantage of the PEXs.
i. The Group B rules by which the Producers were encadered in the grade of PEX specify separate seniority lists for Producers and the PEXS. The irregularities in the recently created combined eligibility list of Pexs and Producers is a violation of the rules.
ii. The said rules also specify for promotion - a variable ratio between the Pexs and Producers. This variable ratio which favoured Pexs was also violated for many years. Instead a ratio of 1:1 was followed to benefit Producers.. The PSA did not take any action on this. On behalf of the Pexs, AUPO took this matter to court in 2000 and received a favourable direction.
II. Response to PSA view point on issues raised by AUPO /PSWA in the meetings with administration.(Points a,b,c, and d of Broadvision )
43. AUPO and PSWA were invited to these meetings because of the contempt filed by AUPO and PSWA to undertake review DPC to IBPS urgently as per statutory rules. The PSA has no role in this case or contempt. However, they came to the meeting and loudly opposed AUPO and PSWA. The views expressed by PSA in the meeting have been reproduced in a much milder and polite form in Broadvision. Clarifications to points a to d are given below.
( point a) i) The PSA view is that the review DPC should include even ineligible persons(engaged on contract after 28-2-1982) from the Producer category ( as they had been included in the past) .
ii) The PSA suggests that ineligible persons must be protected and retained in the eligibility list even though they are not eligible as per the statutory rules. (to avoid legal complications)
iii)To justify the inclusion of ineligible persons, the PSA refers to a SVII order No. 10/21/83-S VII dated 15th/16th February 1985. The PSA should scan this document and put it on the website so that everyone can see and understand if S VII section through this order can regularize persons engaged on contract as GROUP B Government servants of gazetted rank! We are amazed that PSA is trying to establish that S VII section of DG:AIR has the power and authority to replace UPSC to recruit regular Group B Gazetted Officers for the Govt of India?
iv) The PSA says regularization of these persons was also done vide Ministry of I &B Order No. 45011/29/91-B(A) dated 29.11.1991. This is the Scheme of 1991 which we have referred to earlier . As per this scheme staff artists/artists (performing artists who had not been included in the 1982 scheme) were given an opportunity to opt to become government servants. This scheme is actually not applicable to Producers. However, even if it were applicable, a contractual staff artist who opted to become government servant as per the Nov 1991 scheme cannot become a regular government servant before the scheme came into being . We would like the PSA to let everyone know when the regular service of contractual persons regularized by 1991 scheme will start?
v. Through the 1991 Scheme many Staff Artists termed as performing Artists ( eg. Musicians such as Sarangi Player, Violinist etc and Announcers, Newsreaders, etc who had been left out of the 1982 Scheme were made government servant. However, they were not made eligible to become Pex or Asst. Station Director. So just because some one was made a government servant in 1991 it does not give the person automatic entry to the programme cadre in the absence of statutory rules to permit entry.
(point b.) What AUPO actually had said and is saying is that in the combined eligibility list ( prepared as per UPSC requirements) the following points needs to be corrected.
i. only persons eligible as per statutory rules can be included in any list. About 130 persons i.e from s.no. 179 to 309 in the eligibility list prepared by the department have to be deleted as they are not eligible as per cut off date specified in the statutory rules.
ii. In the combined eligibility list, the date of entering into contractual service has wrongly been passed off as regular service. This has been done to give undue advantage to the Producers. Since, producers recruited by the 1982 scheme were made government servant on 6th March 1982, no Producer can have a seniority prior to this date. There is no way that Pexs from 1977 to 1982 can be placed below any Producer.
(point c) : PSA states that AUPO is saying that Producers are not eligible before 1987. We are afraid that the PSA is confusing the eligibility prescribed in statutory rules of 1984 with the eligibility prescribed in the IBPS rules. The PSA is also unnecessarily linking the review DPC from 1982 to 1989 (the Ashraf Lone case ) with the IBPS review DPC (from 1990 onwards) without any understanding of the matter. Though the matter is not connected to the IBPS review DPC we are clarifying the position.
i. As per the IBPS rules only three years regular service in the grade of Pex or Producer is required for JTS, so there is no question of AUPO stating that 5 years regular service is required.
ii. Five years regular service is required for DPC’s prior to the IBPS. Upto 1989(pre –IBPS) , DPC’s have to be held as per the Group A rules of 1984. The said rules specify five years regular service in the grade of Pex/Producer/Pex Grade ( Pex grade includes Pex selection grade, Producer Gr.I and Science Officer.) . This eligibility is not AUPO’s new demand. It is a statutory requirement for the review DPC for the period from 1982 to 1989 and cannot be waived.
iii. PSA has also pointed out that the five year eligibility prescribed in the 1984 rules have been clearly turned down by CAT ,the High Court and the Ministry of I &B. This is a half truth. Through this half truth , the present leadership of the PSA clearly reveals its stand that contractual service of Producers rendered prior to being made government servants in 1982 can be treated as regular service.
iv. You may already be aware that in the Ashraf Lone judgment , the J&K High court directed the Department to identify posts of ASD existing in AIR and Doordarshan from 6th March 1982 to December 1989 and then conduct DPC as per service rules and eligibility conditions.
v. The Department said that this meant that the Producers have to be allocated posts of ASD from 1982 onwards.
vi. AUPO’s plea before the CAT, High Court and now before the Supreme Court is that the J&K High Court is not being implemented properly. The J&K high court did not say to ignore rules and eligibility from 1982 while conducting the review DPC.
vii. In the Ashraf Lone case, AUPO in its case stated that since the rules came into existence only on 23rd March 1984, the Producers regular service in the grade of Pex can start at the earliest only from 1984. AUPO also pleaded that since, the rules prescribe screening by UPSC, service in the grade can start only after the screening. Ministry, CAT and the High Court turned down AUPO’s plea. However, when turning down the plea, the court’s said that they saw no reason to interfere with the Ashraf Lone court judgment which specified the cut off date as 6-3-1982.
viii. AUPO”s plea has been admitted in the Supreme Court.
ix. To avoid any delay’s in any review DPC, AUPO has said that until the matter is decided in the Supreme Court , the cut off date of becoming government servant of 6th March 1982 may be taken into account.
x. It is also most important to know that in the Ashraf Lone judgment it is clearly specified that contractual service rendered prior to 6-3-1982 by the Producers cannot be taken into account. The PSA is aware of that.
Point d : Issue relating to science officers- AUPO has merelypointed out the fact that those who are not eligible as per statutory rules cannot be included in the programme cadre. The 1982 scheme covers only Science Officers who were on long term contract as on 28-2-1982.(such as Sh. G. Jaylal) . The rules also provide for their fitment in the appropriate grade in the programme cadre based on their qualification, record of service and experience.
i. To clarify the point, we shall illustrate with examples. Sh. G. Jaylal, is a contractual science officer who was engaged on contract with M.Sc qualification in 1978.. He was as per the 1982 scheme given the option to become regular government servant on 6th March 1982 and hence his government service starts on that date. He was to be encadered in the appropriate grade in the programme cadre as per rules based on his , qualification, record of service and experience.
ii. Shri Dhiranjan Malvey, joined as PEX through UPSC, in 1977.(one year before Sh. G. Jaylal entered on contract). Mr Malvey is also an M.SC (Gold medallist) . When Sh. Jaylal was made government servant in 1982, Sh. Malvey had 6 years regular service already in the grade of Programme Executive.
iii. The gazette notification of 23.10.1984 also specified that the minimum qualification of a PEX was M.A/M.SC. (Please note the qualification of Sh. Jaylal is only the minimum qualification prescribed by UPSC for a PEX).
iv. The notification equated Science Officer (fee scale of 700 ) with Pex selection grade (Pay scale 700).
v. The notification of 1984 (i.e statutory rules) does not state as PSA suggests that persons will be entered into the programme cadre on the basis of their fee scale. The rules state , we repeat - that i) the persons qualification, ii) record of service and iii) experience has to be taken into account by screening committee of UPSC for appropriate fitment in the programme grade. On all three counts, Sh. G. Jaylal cannot be fitted ahead of Sh. Malvey.
vi. The rules also state that a Pex becomes Pex selection grade in 11 years . Thus , Mr Malvey becomes eligible to become Pex selection grade only in 1988. Mr Jaylal , cannot be eligible to become Pex Selection grade or be fitted into that category before Mr Malvey , or before completion of 11 years service. (even if it includes his contract service).
vii. The case of erstwhile contractual science officers - Smt Aparna Vaish, Shri Hrishikesh Pani and Smt Deepa Chandra are totally different., as they are not covered by either the 1982 scheme , or the 1984 rules. They are also not covered as per the IBPS rules. They were recruited on contract and have only the minimum qualifications prescribed for Pexs. The records show that the Ministry issued an order No. 45011/27/88-b(A)-Vol.II on 23rd May 1988 stating that they have opted to become government servant in pursuance of Ministry’s scheme of 3rd May 1982.
viii. The Ministry’s 1982 scheme is only for those on long term contract as on cut of date of 28-2-1982 . Smt Aparna Vaish, was engaged on short term contract in September 1983 , Shri Hrishikesh Pani in April 1984 and Smt Deepa Chandra in Sept 1984. The earliest they would have been eligible for a long term contract was after 3 years , i.e in 1986 and 1987.
ix. On the cut off date of 28-2-1982, Smt Aparna Vaish, Shri Hrishikesh Pani and Smt Deepa Chandra neither had a long term contract or had even been engaged by Doordarshan/All India Radio. The rules also clearly specify a cut off date of 28-2-1982. Hence, this so called Ministry order and option given to these staff artists in 1988 was illegal. Even, if the order had been legal, they are still not covered under the rules. If they were regularized on 23rd May 1988 ( with qualification similar to Pexs) , AUPO asks on what basis , persons who entered the system in violation of the scheme, the recruitment rules and have only the minimum qualification of Pexs can be due for DDG posts now.
x. We must all remember that there are many persons with higher qualifications recruited through UPSC serving with no promotions. An M.Tech from IIT Sh. R.C. Gopal, who joined as a Pex through UPSC in 1983 is serving without a single regular promotion for 26 years! He is an ad hoc ASD. Sh. Laxmi Shankar Vajpai, is an M.sc gold medallist in Physics was recruited by UPSC in 1980. This issue has to be seen in this context.
xi. It is also very funny how persons regularized as government servants on 23rd May 1988 can be made ASD’s from 1.1.1986 ,!
(III). 1. The PSA has also referred in Broadvision to a whole series of court cases brought up in the context of review DPC’s - Maya Israni case, Ashraf Lone case, Chetan Naik case, S.D. Shastri case and then the Sachidanand Singh case, AUPO’s case, PSWA case etc . Without going into more details, we would like to ask the PSA whether any of these cases are obstructing or coming in the way of the review DPC to production posts of the IBPS.? Since, the answer is NO, we are not offering any further clarification at this point. We would only like to say that Maya Israni , Chetan Naik ,S.D. Shastri and Sachidanand Singh are UPSC Pexs who as individuals fought against violation of statutory rules, without the support of the PSA. Since, their Association abdicated from its responsibility , and declined to safeguard the basic interests of regularly appointed persons, they went to court.
2. The first question that needs to be answered is whether there is any truth in AUPO stating that the PSA has contributed to violating and circumventing the statutory rules ? Or are we making wild unsubstantiated allegations?
3.Well as everyone knows, until 2000, every AUPO member was a PSA member. Neither AUPO or PSWA existed. However, there was wide spread discontent among UPSC PEXS familiar with the Rules. Many times, gross violations of the Statutory Rules were pointed out to the PSA leadership . In the absence of any support by the Association, individuals like Maya Israni , Chetan Naik , S.D. Shastri and Sachidanand Singh went to the court on their own. If PSA had shown the sense of responsibility and fairness to ensure that statutory rules were followed, AUPO would never have been formed. It is now upto the PSA to explain why they ignored the violations of statutory rules , though it harmed the PEXs and created a situation where PEXs have not been promoted for 27 years. This has also affected the promotions of Trexs and Production Assistants as they are behind Pexs in the queue.
4. The sequence of the gross violations of the IBPS statutory rules, PSA’s role in the matter , and how it caused huge damage to the Pexs , and how the PSA action or inaction gave illegal benefits to Producers is explained below.
5. According to the IBPS Rules notified on 5th November 1990, Pexs are eligible for both Management and Production. Producers are however eligible only for Production and not for Management. The PSA from 1990 onwards refused to acknowledge that as per rules , Pexs are eligible for Production posts of IBPS. All Production posts were given exclusively to Producers. In fact ,the PSA even wrote a letter to the Ministry that PEXs were not eligible for Production posts of IBPS. Some of you may have seen this letter in one of the old Broadvision issues.
6. In 2000, a review DPC was conducted to the JTS posts of IBPS. Many senior PEXs were reverted . Many of you may remember how Naramihacharyalu, Sahu , Devika Moktan, Upendra Raina, Subramanium etc were reverted. AUPO repeatedly pointed out that since Pexs are eligible for Production as per rules, these persons have to be considered for both Production and Management and cannot be reverted. PSA however refused to support AUPO at this crucial juncture , on the most important issue affecting the Pexs – that Pexs were not being considered eligible for Production posts of IBPS.
7. AUPO was then forced to take the matter to court. We filed a petition (O.A.No.399/2001) stating that as per IBPS rules , PEXs are eligible for Production posts. AUPO also made the PSA a party to the case, so that PSA would be forced to take a stand on the matter. However, PSA did not bother to come to court or to file any reply. AUPO also transferred to Delhi, and clubbed along with the AUPO case, a case filed by Sh. Sachidananad Singh, an UPSC Pex on the same issue. Both matters were argued by AUPO’s lawyers and decided together.
8. When AUPO won the IBPS case in March 2004, the PSA wrote in Broad vision that the JTS Production case has been won, without mentioning that it was AUPO who had won the case.
9. It is important that everyone understands that in the first place, AUPO had to file a case stating that PEXs were eligible for production posts , only because PSA had not supported the legitimate rights of the PEXs. In order to keep the Producers in its fold, PSA supported the blatant violation of the statutory rules for 14 years . (1990 to 2000) and (2000 to 2004). What was the need for AUPO to go to court, if the PSA had taken a right and just stance then?
10.The PSA’s convoluted stance on this important matter is the single reason why Production posts lay vacant all these years. The gate for Production posts was illegally closed to the PEXs. This is the reason why a PEX remains unpromoted today for 20 to 27 years.. Since Pexs were not considered eligible for the Production posts in IBPS , the PEXS were denied promotion though hundreds of posts lay vacant. Because of this basic violation of the rules, extremely junior Producers were promoted ahead of senior PEXs. Since, Pexs were not promoted , those behind them in the queue- the Trexs and Production Assistants also were affected. This is the reason why we have i/c PEXs and ad hoc Pexs today.
11.The PSA cannot deny that they were repeatedly approached by UPSC PEXS before AUPO was formed ( and even after AUPO was formed ) to help resolve the matter . The PSA cannot deny that they ignored the pleas that PEXs were always eligible for Production posts as per the IBPS statutory rules. The PSA cannot deny that though they were made party to the AUPO case, they refused to attend court, or reply, or support AUPO in this vital matter.
12. The PSA cannot also deny that they came out in support of the matter (and that too briefly) after AUPO won the case in March 2004. First , the PSA claimed in Broad vision that the IBPS case had been won, without specifying that AUPO had won the case. Later on , when news spread round the country about AUPO’s role in the matter, the PSA leadership came up with the drama of an agitation plan , so as to share the credit for conduct the review DPC.
13.Since, the eligibility of Production posts for PEXS matter was something for which AUPO had been fighting for, AUPO joined the agitation plank and stood on the same platform as PSA.
14. Many PSA members and office bearers came from different parts of the country to sincerely participate in what was a monumental breakthrough for the PEXS. These persons will remember how negotiations/discussions took place in the room of Sh. Jaipal Reddy who was then Minister.
15. The PSA had put three demands , over ruling AUPO’s plea that we should have only a single point agenda –i.e - the quick conduct of the review DPC. AUPO feared that the main matter could get diluted.
16. Sh. K.S. Sharma, the then CEO tried to deflect the situation by saying “ we will now move on to point no 2 and 3 on the list of demands which was put forward by the PSA. ” AUPO insisted that point No.1 – the quick conduct of review DPC was the most important agenda and was able to bring the discussion back to the primary issue.
17. Those who were in the room of the Minister that day will remember that AUPO , pointed out that
i. the application for review contained an unconnected bunch of fudged papers which had no relation or connection to the IBPS case .
ii. AUPO also committed that if even one para in that bunch of papers/documents had any connection to the IBPS case, we would withdraw the agitation.
iii. As for appealing in the High Court, AUPO argued that the IBPS rules were very clear . The judgment was also very clear. The Pexs were eligible for both Production and Management. In fact there had been no need to file this case at all in the first place. Moreover programmes all over the country were being produced by PEXS. If the Government , over ruling the statutory rules and the judgment wanted to file any review or any appeal , PEXs all over the country would not undertake production until the appeal was decided. They would until then undertake only Management jobs.
18. On being briefed about the statutory rules, the legal position , and genuiness of the matter, the Hon’ble Minister Shri. Jaipal Reddy immediately gave instructions that no appeal needs to be filed and directed for quick implementation of the review DPC as per the court judgment.
19. AUPO would also like to clarify that we were however kept in the dark about the minutes referred to in Broad vision . This is the first time that we are seeing this minutes. Though a copy of the minutes has been marked to us, we were not given a copy of the same and had no idea that such minutes existed until PSA put it on the website. However, regardless what is said in the minutes, what happened in the meeting with the Minister , was witnessed by atleast around 50 PSA members from different parts of the country who were present in the room .
20. As regards, the minutes of the first meeting with Addl. Secretary, S.K. Arora, put on the PSA web site , in the minutes it is repeatedly stated that the PSA President said this…. and the PSA President said that. It is extremely funny that a joint meeting of the Ministry with PSA and AUPO does not have any reference to what AUPO who won the IBPS case said. It is disturbing that the minutes does not reflect our views and though marked to us, has been kept out of our notice so far.
21. The PSA as everyone knows withdrew its agitation plan . (This was done after the PSA leadership made and received behind the scene telephone calls. The agitation /negotiations had not gone the way that some people had imagined it would.) The PSA did not renew the agitation, though the assurances given to us by the Govt regarding quick conduct of the review DPC was not fulfilled.
22. Instead , without undertaking the base level DPC of PEX to JTS, the PSA then supported and contributed to the further regularization of ineligible persons to the higher grades of the STS, JAG, and SAG grade of Production cadre of IBPS. .(i.e Producers who would have been reverted if a review DPC is done as per rules.) This action supported by the PSA, is equivalent to building the first , second and third floor of a building, knowing fully well that the court has ordered the demolition of the ground floor and has directed for the construction of a new building on a fresh foundation .
23. How did the PSA manage to support the regular DPCs to higher posts without doing the JTS level review DPC? Well, the PSA had filed a case pleading for regularization of persons who were on ad hoc posts for a long time. As per rules, persons cannot be continuously placed on ad hoc without doing regular DPC’s. The court hence gave the PSA a favorable verdict. Using this verdict, the PSA filed a contempt case stating that regular DPCs were not being conducted to different levels of the IBPS. The PSA was aware, that by conducting a regular DPC for instance STS of Production, they would be regularizing the Producers and a regular DPC without involving the PEXs was illegal. However, they chose to ignore this illegality . Sensing the damage that PSA was trying to do, AUPO filed an impleadment application in the PSA contempt case. AUPO wanted to point out to the Court that such regularization being done for higher level posts without doing the JTS level review DPC was illegal. The PSA vociferously opposed our impleadment application on the grounds that AUPO was not a party to their regular DPC case. Thus , with the help of the PSA Contempt case, and with the active support of the PSA and Producers , Government regularized the adhoc persons to STS and higher levels .(Producers) .
24. It is important that everyone understands that it was through the efforts and active support of the PSA , that ineligible Producers due for reversion in the JTS review DPC case were further regularized in the STS cadre of IBPS.. This is how the PSA used its contempt case in the regular DPC case to once again damage the PEXs and illegally promote ineligible Producers to STS etc. The direction of the Hon’ble Court in AUPO’s case that PEXs are eligible for IBPS production posts was completely ignored.
25. We would like to ask the PSA how they can justify the regular DPCs for higher posts in STS, JAG of production in the IBPS without including the PEXs? Thanks to the PSA, today there is not even one person from the PEX cadre in the Production cadre from JTS to SAG.
26. The PSA is , we understand, reviving the same contempt petition to conduct regular DPC for DDG level posts. They hope to regularize many ineligible appointees not covered by the statutory rules (such as science officers) as DDGs.
27. The PSA also states in the Broad vision that the problem of stagnation in the PEX and Trex cadre can be removed only if the review DPC to JTS takes place at the earliest. AUPO would also like everyone to understand that the question of stagnation arises only if there are no vacancies. Here , we have plenty of vacancies. A situation of artificially created stagnation has been caused by violation of statutory rules and non inclusion of eligible persons (PEXs) in the DPCs. If a review DPC is conducted as per rules, the artificial stagnation/ structure supported by the PSA will fall down. Station Directors from the staff artists cadre will be reverted. Senior PEXs will get multiple promotions .
28. The PSA says that review DPC is to be done for JTS levels. The PSA tries to claim that regular DPCs have already been done for other levels. The PSA says that such and such number of vacancies are to be filled. Why are these vacancies not being filled? Is AUPO preventing the DPCs from taking place? Everyone knows that AUPO has filed a contempt against Secretary I&B and DG,AIR for not conducting the review DPC and has been fighting hard to implement the judgment. How can anyone even try to suggest that we are trying to obstruct the conduct of the review DPC?
29. The truth is that review DPC is to be done to all posts in JTS, followed by regular DPC’s to all posts in STS, JAG, SAG etc and that too for the last 18 years (from 1990 to the present) . The regular DPCs done (with PSA support from STS onwards ) without undertaking the review DPC to JTS is illegal .
30. Those serving in STS Production and above have been illegally regularized without considering even a single PEX who has been unpromoted for 27 years. These persons are in grave danger of being reverted, if the review DPC is done as per statutory rules. AUPO has all along been fighting for the quick conduct of the review DPC. It is understandable that the Producers may not be interested in conducting a review DPC as per rules. After all, they are only trying to protect their interests. But the role of the PSA to obstructing the conduct of review DPC as per statutory rules and prescribed eligibility conditions is really sad. Their role in trying to protect the Producer’s at the cost of the Pex’s is agonizing. AUPO’s stance is simple. Follow the RULES!
31. To conduct this review DPC , a combined seniority list of Pexs and Producers had been created by the Department. In this list , the date of contractual service of Producers has been shown as regular service and Producers who entered on contract upto 1985 have been placed enbloc over even UPSC recruited Pexs from 1977. Why did the PSA not object to it? Is the PSA not aware of the statutory rules ? Are they not aware of the difference between a regular government servant and a contractual employee? Are they suggesting that date of engagement on contract can be substituted for regular service? The PSA is trying to defend not only this but also the inclusion of non eligible persons in the list?
32. The IBPS rules state that 3 years regular service in the grade of Pex /Producer is required to be eligible for promotion. This eligibility cannot be violated or compromised by anyone.(As on today someone who was engaged on contract in 1984 and was given an option to be regularized as government servant in 1991 is deemed as senior to a 1982/1983 regular UPSC Pex.) This has been done by illegally treating the persons date of engagement on contract as regular service. This review DPC should necessarily correct this irregularity, blatant violation of statutory rules and DOPT norms - something that has also been clarified in umpteen court judgments, including the historic Uma Devi judgment.
33. The PSA should not try to pretend that some order issued by the Ministry or S VII section in DG, AIR in say 1988 or 1991 is sufficient to make all staff artists engaged on contract , regular government servants retrospectively from the date that they first entered into contract.! So any order ,or file notings or pious intentions are not worth the paper it is written on. In the constitutional bench judgment of Uma Devi, the Supreme Court observed in para 5 “ no government order, notification or circular can be substituted for the statutory rules framed under the law”.
34. As you know, Staff Artists were made Government servants by two schemes. The first scheme was the 1982 Scheme. According to the first scheme, erstwhile staff artists engaged on contract before the cut off date of 28-2-1982 could opt to be made Government servants with effect from 6th March 1982 . (So regular government service of the first group of staff artists/artists starts only on 6th March 1982.).
35. A second group of staff artists/ artists were also given the option of becoming government servant according to the second scheme of November 1991. (So the regular government service of the second group of persons obviously can start only in November 1991. )
36. Many of you may have come across the recent DOPT order No. 35034/3/2008-Estt.(D) dated 19th May 2009 which has been issued for Modified ACP Scheme. , If you see para 9 of this order it states that “Service rendered on adhoc/contract basis before regular appointment cannot be taken into account” . Moreover , as pointed out above , there are countless supreme court judgments including the constitutional bench judgment in the Uma Devi case that states the same thing. A persons contractual service cannot be equated as regular government service. What is the PSA’s answer to this? When does the regular service of a contractual person regularized in November 1991 start according to the PSA?
37. What is most important is that persons engaged on contract after 28-2-1982 are not even included in the programme cadre so far as per the existing rules. Some of them are not even staff artists. They were merely engaged on renewable monthly/ six monthly contracts. They are hence not eligible as per rules. The Department has also agreed that as on date these persons are not eligible as per rules.
38. Is the PSA suggesting that the statutory rules should again be violated? What do they mean when they say there are only 3 Science Officers or 97 Producers etc. The PSA simply has to clarify whether these persons are covered by the existing rules or not ? And when do these persons regular service start? The PSA says that these persons have been included in the seniority list for 20 years. They say , that removing these persons (even though they are not eligible and covered by the rules) would become legally complicated. Well, this is a very funny argument. When confronted with the evidence as to why UPSC recruited Pexs eligible as per rules for 2 decades have not received their promotions, the PSA comes up with a funny argument. A review DPC has to be done as per rules. A review DPC is done if eligible persons have been left out /or if ineligible persons have been left out. Since ineligible persons have been included , they must be left out now.
39. The fact is that some persons who were engaged on contract and were made regular government servants some time in 1991 by virtue of some scheme , and are as on date not covered by the statutory rules governing the regular programme cadre have illegally become our superiors and written our CRs. This was done by violating the statutory RRs. Evidence received through RTI etc has been given to the department. Such illegality cannot be permitted to continue. In any case, AUPO or PSA or PSWA , or even the courts , or the Government have no authority to trifle with the statutory rules which were notified by an Act of Parliament.
40. The PSA also suggests in Broadvision that PEXs are suffering and review DPC has been held up because of a string of cases filed on issues like discipline wise promotion and work allocation, seniority list, notification of duties and responsibilities of IB(P) S officers etc. There is absolutely no truth in this statement. The truth is that there is not even a single case holding up the review DPC. None of these cases, mentioned by the PSA stand in the way of conduct of the review DPC.
41. In fact, the Government is under severe pressure because of the contempt filed by AUPO and PSWA for not conducting the review DPC to the IBPS . Even the courts are finding it difficult to show leniency to the Government after five years.
42. The rules prior to the IBPS(i.e the 1984 Group A & B Rules) have also been violated to the disadvantage of the PEXs.
i. The Group B rules by which the Producers were encadered in the grade of PEX specify separate seniority lists for Producers and the PEXS. The irregularities in the recently created combined eligibility list of Pexs and Producers is a violation of the rules.
ii. The said rules also specify for promotion - a variable ratio between the Pexs and Producers. This variable ratio which favoured Pexs was also violated for many years. Instead a ratio of 1:1 was followed to benefit Producers.. The PSA did not take any action on this. On behalf of the Pexs, AUPO took this matter to court in 2000 and received a favourable direction.
II. Response to PSA view point on issues raised by AUPO /PSWA in the meetings with administration.(Points a,b,c, and d of Broadvision )
43. AUPO and PSWA were invited to these meetings because of the contempt filed by AUPO and PSWA to undertake review DPC to IBPS urgently as per statutory rules. The PSA has no role in this case or contempt. However, they came to the meeting and loudly opposed AUPO and PSWA. The views expressed by PSA in the meeting have been reproduced in a much milder and polite form in Broadvision. Clarifications to points a to d are given below.
( point a) i) The PSA view is that the review DPC should include even ineligible persons(engaged on contract after 28-2-1982) from the Producer category ( as they had been included in the past) .
ii) The PSA suggests that ineligible persons must be protected and retained in the eligibility list even though they are not eligible as per the statutory rules. (to avoid legal complications)
iii)To justify the inclusion of ineligible persons, the PSA refers to a SVII order No. 10/21/83-S VII dated 15th/16th February 1985. The PSA should scan this document and put it on the website so that everyone can see and understand if S VII section through this order can regularize persons engaged on contract as GROUP B Government servants of gazetted rank! We are amazed that PSA is trying to establish that S VII section of DG:AIR has the power and authority to replace UPSC to recruit regular Group B Gazetted Officers for the Govt of India?
iv) The PSA says regularization of these persons was also done vide Ministry of I &B Order No. 45011/29/91-B(A) dated 29.11.1991. This is the Scheme of 1991 which we have referred to earlier . As per this scheme staff artists/artists (performing artists who had not been included in the 1982 scheme) were given an opportunity to opt to become government servants. This scheme is actually not applicable to Producers. However, even if it were applicable, a contractual staff artist who opted to become government servant as per the Nov 1991 scheme cannot become a regular government servant before the scheme came into being . We would like the PSA to let everyone know when the regular service of contractual persons regularized by 1991 scheme will start?
v. Through the 1991 Scheme many Staff Artists termed as performing Artists ( eg. Musicians such as Sarangi Player, Violinist etc and Announcers, Newsreaders, etc who had been left out of the 1982 Scheme were made government servant. However, they were not made eligible to become Pex or Asst. Station Director. So just because some one was made a government servant in 1991 it does not give the person automatic entry to the programme cadre in the absence of statutory rules to permit entry.
(point b.) What AUPO actually had said and is saying is that in the combined eligibility list ( prepared as per UPSC requirements) the following points needs to be corrected.
i. only persons eligible as per statutory rules can be included in any list. About 130 persons i.e from s.no. 179 to 309 in the eligibility list prepared by the department have to be deleted as they are not eligible as per cut off date specified in the statutory rules.
ii. In the combined eligibility list, the date of entering into contractual service has wrongly been passed off as regular service. This has been done to give undue advantage to the Producers. Since, producers recruited by the 1982 scheme were made government servant on 6th March 1982, no Producer can have a seniority prior to this date. There is no way that Pexs from 1977 to 1982 can be placed below any Producer.
(point c) : PSA states that AUPO is saying that Producers are not eligible before 1987. We are afraid that the PSA is confusing the eligibility prescribed in statutory rules of 1984 with the eligibility prescribed in the IBPS rules. The PSA is also unnecessarily linking the review DPC from 1982 to 1989 (the Ashraf Lone case ) with the IBPS review DPC (from 1990 onwards) without any understanding of the matter. Though the matter is not connected to the IBPS review DPC we are clarifying the position.
i. As per the IBPS rules only three years regular service in the grade of Pex or Producer is required for JTS, so there is no question of AUPO stating that 5 years regular service is required.
ii. Five years regular service is required for DPC’s prior to the IBPS. Upto 1989(pre –IBPS) , DPC’s have to be held as per the Group A rules of 1984. The said rules specify five years regular service in the grade of Pex/Producer/Pex Grade ( Pex grade includes Pex selection grade, Producer Gr.I and Science Officer.) . This eligibility is not AUPO’s new demand. It is a statutory requirement for the review DPC for the period from 1982 to 1989 and cannot be waived.
iii. PSA has also pointed out that the five year eligibility prescribed in the 1984 rules have been clearly turned down by CAT ,the High Court and the Ministry of I &B. This is a half truth. Through this half truth , the present leadership of the PSA clearly reveals its stand that contractual service of Producers rendered prior to being made government servants in 1982 can be treated as regular service.
iv. You may already be aware that in the Ashraf Lone judgment , the J&K High court directed the Department to identify posts of ASD existing in AIR and Doordarshan from 6th March 1982 to December 1989 and then conduct DPC as per service rules and eligibility conditions.
v. The Department said that this meant that the Producers have to be allocated posts of ASD from 1982 onwards.
vi. AUPO’s plea before the CAT, High Court and now before the Supreme Court is that the J&K High Court is not being implemented properly. The J&K high court did not say to ignore rules and eligibility from 1982 while conducting the review DPC.
vii. In the Ashraf Lone case, AUPO in its case stated that since the rules came into existence only on 23rd March 1984, the Producers regular service in the grade of Pex can start at the earliest only from 1984. AUPO also pleaded that since, the rules prescribe screening by UPSC, service in the grade can start only after the screening. Ministry, CAT and the High Court turned down AUPO’s plea. However, when turning down the plea, the court’s said that they saw no reason to interfere with the Ashraf Lone court judgment which specified the cut off date as 6-3-1982.
viii. AUPO”s plea has been admitted in the Supreme Court.
ix. To avoid any delay’s in any review DPC, AUPO has said that until the matter is decided in the Supreme Court , the cut off date of becoming government servant of 6th March 1982 may be taken into account.
x. It is also most important to know that in the Ashraf Lone judgment it is clearly specified that contractual service rendered prior to 6-3-1982 by the Producers cannot be taken into account. The PSA is aware of that.
Point d : Issue relating to science officers- AUPO has merelypointed out the fact that those who are not eligible as per statutory rules cannot be included in the programme cadre. The 1982 scheme covers only Science Officers who were on long term contract as on 28-2-1982.(such as Sh. G. Jaylal) . The rules also provide for their fitment in the appropriate grade in the programme cadre based on their qualification, record of service and experience.
i. To clarify the point, we shall illustrate with examples. Sh. G. Jaylal, is a contractual science officer who was engaged on contract with M.Sc qualification in 1978.. He was as per the 1982 scheme given the option to become regular government servant on 6th March 1982 and hence his government service starts on that date. He was to be encadered in the appropriate grade in the programme cadre as per rules based on his , qualification, record of service and experience.
ii. Shri Dhiranjan Malvey, joined as PEX through UPSC, in 1977.(one year before Sh. G. Jaylal entered on contract). Mr Malvey is also an M.SC (Gold medallist) . When Sh. Jaylal was made government servant in 1982, Sh. Malvey had 6 years regular service already in the grade of Programme Executive.
iii. The gazette notification of 23.10.1984 also specified that the minimum qualification of a PEX was M.A/M.SC. (Please note the qualification of Sh. Jaylal is only the minimum qualification prescribed by UPSC for a PEX).
iv. The notification equated Science Officer (fee scale of 700 ) with Pex selection grade (Pay scale 700).
v. The notification of 1984 (i.e statutory rules) does not state as PSA suggests that persons will be entered into the programme cadre on the basis of their fee scale. The rules state , we repeat - that i) the persons qualification, ii) record of service and iii) experience has to be taken into account by screening committee of UPSC for appropriate fitment in the programme grade. On all three counts, Sh. G. Jaylal cannot be fitted ahead of Sh. Malvey.
vi. The rules also state that a Pex becomes Pex selection grade in 11 years . Thus , Mr Malvey becomes eligible to become Pex selection grade only in 1988. Mr Jaylal , cannot be eligible to become Pex Selection grade or be fitted into that category before Mr Malvey , or before completion of 11 years service. (even if it includes his contract service).
vii. The case of erstwhile contractual science officers - Smt Aparna Vaish, Shri Hrishikesh Pani and Smt Deepa Chandra are totally different., as they are not covered by either the 1982 scheme , or the 1984 rules. They are also not covered as per the IBPS rules. They were recruited on contract and have only the minimum qualifications prescribed for Pexs. The records show that the Ministry issued an order No. 45011/27/88-b(A)-Vol.II on 23rd May 1988 stating that they have opted to become government servant in pursuance of Ministry’s scheme of 3rd May 1982.
viii. The Ministry’s 1982 scheme is only for those on long term contract as on cut of date of 28-2-1982 . Smt Aparna Vaish, was engaged on short term contract in September 1983 , Shri Hrishikesh Pani in April 1984 and Smt Deepa Chandra in Sept 1984. The earliest they would have been eligible for a long term contract was after 3 years , i.e in 1986 and 1987.
ix. On the cut off date of 28-2-1982, Smt Aparna Vaish, Shri Hrishikesh Pani and Smt Deepa Chandra neither had a long term contract or had even been engaged by Doordarshan/All India Radio. The rules also clearly specify a cut off date of 28-2-1982. Hence, this so called Ministry order and option given to these staff artists in 1988 was illegal. Even, if the order had been legal, they are still not covered under the rules. If they were regularized on 23rd May 1988 ( with qualification similar to Pexs) , AUPO asks on what basis , persons who entered the system in violation of the scheme, the recruitment rules and have only the minimum qualification of Pexs can be due for DDG posts now.
x. We must all remember that there are many persons with higher qualifications recruited through UPSC serving with no promotions. An M.Tech from IIT Sh. R.C. Gopal, who joined as a Pex through UPSC in 1983 is serving without a single regular promotion for 26 years! He is an ad hoc ASD. Sh. Laxmi Shankar Vajpai, is an M.sc gold medallist in Physics was recruited by UPSC in 1980. This issue has to be seen in this context.
xi. It is also very funny how persons regularized as government servants on 23rd May 1988 can be made ASD’s from 1.1.1986 ,!
(III). 1. The PSA has also referred in Broadvision to a whole series of court cases brought up in the context of review DPC’s - Maya Israni case, Ashraf Lone case, Chetan Naik case, S.D. Shastri case and then the Sachidanand Singh case, AUPO’s case, PSWA case etc . Without going into more details, we would like to ask the PSA whether any of these cases are obstructing or coming in the way of the review DPC to production posts of the IBPS.? Since, the answer is NO, we are not offering any further clarification at this point. We would only like to say that Maya Israni , Chetan Naik ,S.D. Shastri and Sachidanand Singh are UPSC Pexs who as individuals fought against violation of statutory rules, without the support of the PSA. Since, their Association abdicated from its responsibility , and declined to safeguard the basic interests of regularly appointed persons, they went to court.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
JOIN AUPO
DEAR FRIENDS, AFTER SENDING THE LETTER OF RESIGNATION TO PSA, SEND A COPY TO THE CONVENOR,AUPO IN THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS, AS SHOWN BELOW
Copy to : L.S. Vajpai, Convenor, AUPO, 82, Broadcasting House, Akashwani Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi -110001., with the request that i may be included in the AUPO as per norms. I am also willing to undertake any responsibility in the AUPO that may be assigned to me to the best of my ability.
Copy to : L.S. Vajpai, Convenor, AUPO, 82, Broadcasting House, Akashwani Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi -110001., with the request that i may be included in the AUPO as per norms. I am also willing to undertake any responsibility in the AUPO that may be assigned to me to the best of my ability.
Monday, May 4, 2009
LETTER OF RESIGNATION FROM PSA
The President
P.S.A (The Programme Staff Association of AIR&D00rdarshan)
Room No: 404, T&PES
Akashvani Bhavan, Parliament Street,
New.Delhi
Letter of resignation from PSA
Dear Shri Sanjay Sreevastav,
It is distressing that the PSA has been persistently contributing to ignoring, circumventing and violating the statutory recruitment rules . stance on many vital issues has not only adversely affected the UPSC recruited officers of AIR and DD and blocked our promotions for 20 to 25 years, but has also during your tenure led to the illegal regularization of contractual persons at higher grades , even though many of them are not covered by the statutory rules and are due to be reverted in the pending review DPC to the IBPS.
The role of the PSA as an association has led to a grave situation unheard of in any Department/Ministry of the Government of India. Senior programme officers recruited through constitutional norms of the UPSC through pre amended rules of 1962 , have not received a single regular promotion so far! They shockingly serve under persons engaged on contract and were regularized as government servants and encadered by the amended recruitment rules of 1984!! Pexs from 1982 to 1991 batches also serve under contractual persons who were illegally inducted into programme cadre , who are even on date not covered by the recruitment rules.
It has also been brought to our notice that the PSA is taking different stances regarding the contractual service rendered by Producers and Production Assistants as staff artists .
a) The PSA suggests that contractual service of Producers and Science Officers rendered prior to their regularization as Government servant on 6.3.1982 can be taken into account for purposes of promotion ( though this is in violation of statutory rules and court judgments). As regards Contractual Producers who were engaged on renewable monthly contracts after the statutory cut off date of 28-2-1982 , stipulated in the statutory rules, the PSA is trying to justify that their contractual service may be treated as regular service right from the first day they entered the system on contract.
b) However, in case of Production Assistants, the PSA is clear that as per statutory rules and court judgments the contractual service is not applicable and cannot be taken in to account.
Many of the direct recruit Pexs have stayed with the PSA so far and tried our best to resolve issues from within its fold. We have tried to ignore the many lapses of the PSA including the unpardonable lapse of stating that Pexs are not eligible for Production posts of the IBPS. This matter had to be resolved by AUPO through judicial means and it is unfortunate that the PSA though they were made party to the case , stayed away from the judicial proceedings until AUPO won the case.
A lot of hope had however been placed by the direct recruitees on different PSA leaders including the present leadership. We had hoped that the statutory rules would be followed . Our faith and patience with the PSA has been completely exhausted and I resign my membership in PSA to join AUPO (Association of UPSC recruited officers of AIR&DD). I request that this may be brought to force forthwith and my name removed from the PSA membership roll.
Sincerely Yours
Name :
Designation:
Station/Kendra:
Membership No:
Copy to : L.S. Vajpai, Convenor, AUPO, 82, Broadcasting House, Akashwani Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi -110001., with the request that I may be included in the AUPO as per norms. I am also willing to undertake any responsibility in the AUPO that may be assigned to me to the best of my ability.
Signature and Date
P.S.A (The Programme Staff Association of AIR&D00rdarshan)
Room No: 404, T&PES
Akashvani Bhavan, Parliament Street,
New.Delhi
Letter of resignation from PSA
Dear Shri Sanjay Sreevastav,
It is distressing that the PSA has been persistently contributing to ignoring, circumventing and violating the statutory recruitment rules . stance on many vital issues has not only adversely affected the UPSC recruited officers of AIR and DD and blocked our promotions for 20 to 25 years, but has also during your tenure led to the illegal regularization of contractual persons at higher grades , even though many of them are not covered by the statutory rules and are due to be reverted in the pending review DPC to the IBPS.
The role of the PSA as an association has led to a grave situation unheard of in any Department/Ministry of the Government of India. Senior programme officers recruited through constitutional norms of the UPSC through pre amended rules of 1962 , have not received a single regular promotion so far! They shockingly serve under persons engaged on contract and were regularized as government servants and encadered by the amended recruitment rules of 1984!! Pexs from 1982 to 1991 batches also serve under contractual persons who were illegally inducted into programme cadre , who are even on date not covered by the recruitment rules.
It has also been brought to our notice that the PSA is taking different stances regarding the contractual service rendered by Producers and Production Assistants as staff artists .
a) The PSA suggests that contractual service of Producers and Science Officers rendered prior to their regularization as Government servant on 6.3.1982 can be taken into account for purposes of promotion ( though this is in violation of statutory rules and court judgments). As regards Contractual Producers who were engaged on renewable monthly contracts after the statutory cut off date of 28-2-1982 , stipulated in the statutory rules, the PSA is trying to justify that their contractual service may be treated as regular service right from the first day they entered the system on contract.
b) However, in case of Production Assistants, the PSA is clear that as per statutory rules and court judgments the contractual service is not applicable and cannot be taken in to account.
Many of the direct recruit Pexs have stayed with the PSA so far and tried our best to resolve issues from within its fold. We have tried to ignore the many lapses of the PSA including the unpardonable lapse of stating that Pexs are not eligible for Production posts of the IBPS. This matter had to be resolved by AUPO through judicial means and it is unfortunate that the PSA though they were made party to the case , stayed away from the judicial proceedings until AUPO won the case.
A lot of hope had however been placed by the direct recruitees on different PSA leaders including the present leadership. We had hoped that the statutory rules would be followed . Our faith and patience with the PSA has been completely exhausted and I resign my membership in PSA to join AUPO (Association of UPSC recruited officers of AIR&DD). I request that this may be brought to force forthwith and my name removed from the PSA membership roll.
Sincerely Yours
Name :
Designation:
Station/Kendra:
Membership No:
Copy to : L.S. Vajpai, Convenor, AUPO, 82, Broadcasting House, Akashwani Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi -110001., with the request that I may be included in the AUPO as per norms. I am also willing to undertake any responsibility in the AUPO that may be assigned to me to the best of my ability.
Signature and Date
Thursday, April 30, 2009
LATEST SATTELITE MESSAGE
General Circulars
Section : S-I(B)
SATELLITE MESSAGE
THIS IS IN CONTINUATION OF RN MESSAGE NO.4(3)2009-SI(B) DATED 4TH APRIL, 2009 ALSO AVAILABLE ON AIRNET RELATING TO INFORMATION REGARDING SERVICE DETAILS/DOCUMENTS OF ERSTWHILE STAFF ARTISTS (.) IN ADDITION TO THIS SERVICE RECORD/DOCUMENTS/INFORMATION RELATING TO ALL ERSTWHILE STAFF ARTISTS WHO HAD WORKED IN THE CATEGORIES OF SCIENCE OFFICERS, PRODUCER (GRADE-I), PRODUCER (SELECTION GRADE), PRODUCER (GRADE-II), TRANSLATOR, EDITOR, REFERENCE OFFICER ETC. AND WERE INDUCTED IN THE JTS GRADE OF PRODUCTION AND MANAGEMENT CADRES OF ALL INDIA RADIO AND DOORDARSHAN IN TERMS OF RULE 6 OF THE IBPS WITH EFFECT FROM 05.11.1990 AT THE INITIAL CONSTITUTION OF THE SERVICE MAY ALSO BE SENT (.)
A LIST OF PERSONS WHO WERE INDUCTED IN THE JTS OF IBPS AT ITS INITIAL CONSTITUTION VIDE M/O I &B ORDER NO.45011/19/91-B (A) DATED 19TH DECEMBER, 1991 IS PLACED ON AIR NET(.) ALL STATION DIRECTORS/HEAD OF OFFICES/CONCERNED OFFICIALS EATURING IN THIS LIST ARE REQUIRED TO FURNISH THE RECORDS IN THE PRESCRIBED PROFORMA MENTIONED IN THE SATELLITE MESSAGE OF 4TH APRIL 2009 (.) THE REQUISITE INFORMATION MAY BE PROVIDED AT THE EARLIEST (.) IF ANY STAFF ARTISTS/CONTRACT PERSON/CADRE HAS BEEN INADVERTENTLY LEFT OUT OF THE LISTS, HE/SHE MAY ALSO SENT NECESSARY DETAILS IN THE FORMAT MENTIONED IN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE DATED 4TH APRIL, 2009 (.)
No. 4/3/2009 ? S I (B)
Prasar Bharati
Broadcasting Corporation of India
Directorate General: All India Radio
Parliament Street, New Delhi
Dated 29TH April, 2009
(N. Srivastava)
Dy. Director of Admn. (P)
DP (Policy)
Station Director, AIR, New Delhi with the request to have this message announced immediately twice a day on 2 consecutive days.
(N. Srivastava)
Dy. Director of Admn. (P)
List of persons inducted in JTS of IBPS vide Ministry of I & B's order no. 45011/19/91 - BA dated 19.12.91
S. No.
Name
1
Shri L. P. Yolmo
2
Shri Munnikrishnappa
3
Shri J. L. Sikdar
4
Shri D. P. Jatav
5
Shri S. P. Goverdhan
6
Shri G. C. Suklavaidya
7
Shri G. Jayalal
8
Shri Shiv Kumar
9
Smt. Roseline Lakra
10
Shri N. C. Deb Barma
11
Shri K. C. Sharma
12
Shri Girish Chandra
13
Shri B. R. Pantulu
14
Shri T. K. Sen
15
Shri M. Mahirchandani
16
Ms. Mukta Shukla
17
Shri G. S. Grampurohit
18
Shri H. S. Walter
19
Shri Harishikesh Pani
20
Shri S. N. Mishra
21
Smt. Durga Bhaskar
22
Shri B. K. Sarkar
23
Smt. Shukla Wadhwani
24
Shri G. S. Srikishnan
25
Shri H. C. Sharma
26
Shri B. L. Sopori
27
Shri N. G. Das
28
Shri C. D. Sinha
29
Shri J. T. Jirdo
30
Shri N. M. A. Kampti
31
Shri E. S. Sundaramurthy
32
Shri M. Bandopadhyay
33
Shri S. K. Sanyal
34
Shri Avinash Sarmandal
35
Smt. V. Santhanamurthy
36
Shri Vinesh Antani
37
Shri S. K. Roy
38
Shri Gulab Chand
39
Shri R. N. Jha
40
Shri C. K. Mothey
41
Shri T. K. Sharma
42
Shri K. Naik
43
Shri A. K. Padhi
44
Shri A. R. Hardikar
45
Shri Jatinder Gupta
46
Shri U. K. Das
47
Shri Shankar Lal
48
Shri M. R. Kamble
49
Shri H. T. Karande
50
Shri A. F. Sheth
51
Shri G. R. Chapalkar
52
Shri B. R. Rai
53
Smt. T. Angmo
54
Shri Abdul Khaliq
55
Shri S. S. Sharma
56
Athos Fernandes
57
Smt. V. K. Kwatra
58
Shri H. R. Krishnamurthy
59
Shri Jayant S. Erande
60
Shri V. M. Trivedi
61
Shri Keshvanand
62
Shri P. P. Solanki
63
Dr. J. K. Das
64
Shri S. N. Bahera
65
Shri K. B. Gopalan
66
Smt. Aparna Vaish
67
Shri Ram Kumar
68
Shri Shyam Mohan
69
Shri A. K. Sen
70
Shri Tashi Anodus
71
Shri R. G. Narula
72
Shri H. S. Rawal
73
Shri B. J. K. Sharma
74
Shri Naba Kumar Singh
75
Shri S. K. Bose
76
Shri V. K. Godkhindi
77
Smt. Karuna Srivastava
78
Shri M. N. Borthakur
79
Shri Mehmood Hashmi
80
Dr. G. L. Bihal alias Gangesh Gunjan
81
Shri R. Viswanandham
82
Shri J. N. Tudu
83
Shri H. C. Verma
84
Shri Livistone Moses
85
Shri E. W. Dkhar
86
Shri G. N. Chaturvedi
87
Shri Y. P. Sharma
88
Shri N. K. Sharma
89
Smt. K. S. Nirmala Devi
90
Smt. Minakshi R. P. Mishra
91
Shri S. K. Upadyay
92
Shri H. S. Batalvi
93
Shri Srikant Das
94
Shri G. H. Zia
95
Shri Brij Raj Tiwari
96
Smt. Indu Bhai Ramesh
97
Shri A. D. Adwadkar
98
Shri F. M. Kasana
99
Shri R. Moongrey
100
Shri A. K. Rej
101
Shri H. M. Khan
102
Kum. K. T. Meshram
103
Shri S. K. Chatterjee
104
Shri K. D. Gupta
105
Shri P. Krishnaswamy
106
Shri J. C. Mishra
107
Shri P. K. Mitra
108
Smt. Jayanti Purkayastha
109
Shri G. B. Aladakatti
110
Dr. U. B. Mishra
111
Dr. M. C. Shah
112
Shri I. K. Nirala
113
Shri R. R. K. Shree
114
Shri A. T. Dhumbre
115
Shri Prince Jai Singh
116
Shri K. S. Unni
117
Shri Jwala Prasad
118
Kum. Priya Kapur
119
Shri B. R. Nirbhavane
120
Kum. Deepa Chandra
121
Shri A. K. Basumalik
122
Smt. R. P. Namboodiri
123
Smt. V. Ramani Sanwal
124
Shri Mohd. Ashroof Lone
125
Shri F. M. Khan
126
Shri Sirraiuddin Qureshi
127
Shri V. H. Bhamare
128
Shri S. K. Dasgupta
129
Shri T. K. ?ghavacharyulu
130
Shri Nalla Thampi
131
Smt. Nimmi Gupta
132
Shri B. K. Mohanty
133
Ms. Saba Zaidi
134
Kum. Sehzadi Simon
135
Shri Rajam Sabharwal
136
Shri S. V. Sharma
137
Shri M. S. Naik
138
Shri M. N. Sharma
139
Shri V. S. Pansare
140
Shri V. K. Kapoor
141
Shri Kabir Ahmed
142
Shri M. Sasitharan
143
Shri S. Ravidas
144
Shri A. B. Deshpande
145
Smt. Kamalini Dutt
146
Shri Vijaya Kumar
147
Shri Abhiji Dasgupta
148
Shri A. N. Sen
149
Shri A. K. Chakraborty
150
Shri S. H. Paul
151
Smt. Meena Vaishnavi
152
Smt. Sarvat Sanjar
153
Shri Zafar Ahmed
154
Shri G. S. Gunthey
155
Shri J. N. Mukherjee
156
Kum. Bhakit Prabha
157
Shri Majzur -ul-Haq
158
Shri S. S. Rehman
159
Smt. Jyoti Vyas
160
Smt. S. B. Kalra
161
Shri S. C. Dutt
162
Smt. Vimal Issar
163
Shri B. Y. Bhatkar
164
Shri A. P. Sharma
165
Shri S. N. Dhir
166
Shri Chamman Bagga
167
Shri Kumud Nagar
168
Shri P. N. Verma
169
Shri V. N. S. Bhatnagar
170
Shri B. L. Awasthy
171
Shri G. S. Sharma
172
Shri Manohar Pingle
173
Shri Kuber Dutt
174
Shri B. Adhikari
175
Shri A. K. Mohanty
176
Shri D. K. Nath
177
Shri Jaggannath Bose
178
Shri B. A. Badgami
179
Shri G. D. Ghosal
180
Smt. Jutika Dutta
181
Shri P. K. Saha
182
Shri S. S. Royghatak
183
Shri Manbir Singh
184
Smt. Indrani Roy
185
Shri J. L. Zuthsi
186
Shri Mohd. Shamim
187
Shri Peer Mohamed
188
Shri S. Perumal
189
Shri R. N. Felix Paul
190
Shri S. Bhaskar
191
Smt. Yamuna Subramaniam
192
Smt. V. M. Joglekar
193
Shri N. C. Guha
194
Kum. K. S. Hemlatha
195
Shri Ahmad Jalees
196
Shri Iqbal Majeed
197
Shri S. C. Bose
198
Shri Nand Bhardwaj
199
Ms. Sukhjinder
200
Smt. Avinash Yashpal
201
Shri G. M. Shirhatti
202
Smt. Neeraj Vohra
203
Shri M. J. Sahil
204
Shri R. C. Bhakri
205
Shri Yog Bata
206
Smt. Bani Ghose
207
Shri P. L. Handoo
208
Shri R. R. Mishra
209
Shri M. C. Rajkhowa
210
Kum. Sita Nanda
211
Shri D. L. Hakoo
212
Shri Amlendu Sinha
213
Shri N. Rajagopalan
214
Smt. Ved Sinha
215
Shri C. L. Asnani
216
Shri G. R. Bhatt
217
Smt. Sudha Gupta
218
Shri R. Chatterjee
219
Smt. Shamim Ismat
220
Smt. Q. W. Thakur
221
Shri S. Inder Kumar Singh
222
Shri S. K. Sawhney
223
Shri Santosh Misra
224
Shri S. K. Sane
Section : S-I(B)
SATELLITE MESSAGE
THIS IS IN CONTINUATION OF RN MESSAGE NO.4(3)2009-SI(B) DATED 4TH APRIL, 2009 ALSO AVAILABLE ON AIRNET RELATING TO INFORMATION REGARDING SERVICE DETAILS/DOCUMENTS OF ERSTWHILE STAFF ARTISTS (.) IN ADDITION TO THIS SERVICE RECORD/DOCUMENTS/INFORMATION RELATING TO ALL ERSTWHILE STAFF ARTISTS WHO HAD WORKED IN THE CATEGORIES OF SCIENCE OFFICERS, PRODUCER (GRADE-I), PRODUCER (SELECTION GRADE), PRODUCER (GRADE-II), TRANSLATOR, EDITOR, REFERENCE OFFICER ETC. AND WERE INDUCTED IN THE JTS GRADE OF PRODUCTION AND MANAGEMENT CADRES OF ALL INDIA RADIO AND DOORDARSHAN IN TERMS OF RULE 6 OF THE IBPS WITH EFFECT FROM 05.11.1990 AT THE INITIAL CONSTITUTION OF THE SERVICE MAY ALSO BE SENT (.)
A LIST OF PERSONS WHO WERE INDUCTED IN THE JTS OF IBPS AT ITS INITIAL CONSTITUTION VIDE M/O I &B ORDER NO.45011/19/91-B (A) DATED 19TH DECEMBER, 1991 IS PLACED ON AIR NET(.) ALL STATION DIRECTORS/HEAD OF OFFICES/CONCERNED OFFICIALS EATURING IN THIS LIST ARE REQUIRED TO FURNISH THE RECORDS IN THE PRESCRIBED PROFORMA MENTIONED IN THE SATELLITE MESSAGE OF 4TH APRIL 2009 (.) THE REQUISITE INFORMATION MAY BE PROVIDED AT THE EARLIEST (.) IF ANY STAFF ARTISTS/CONTRACT PERSON/CADRE HAS BEEN INADVERTENTLY LEFT OUT OF THE LISTS, HE/SHE MAY ALSO SENT NECESSARY DETAILS IN THE FORMAT MENTIONED IN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE DATED 4TH APRIL, 2009 (.)
No. 4/3/2009 ? S I (B)
Prasar Bharati
Broadcasting Corporation of India
Directorate General: All India Radio
Parliament Street, New Delhi
Dated 29TH April, 2009
(N. Srivastava)
Dy. Director of Admn. (P)
DP (Policy)
Station Director, AIR, New Delhi with the request to have this message announced immediately twice a day on 2 consecutive days.
(N. Srivastava)
Dy. Director of Admn. (P)
List of persons inducted in JTS of IBPS vide Ministry of I & B's order no. 45011/19/91 - BA dated 19.12.91
S. No.
Name
1
Shri L. P. Yolmo
2
Shri Munnikrishnappa
3
Shri J. L. Sikdar
4
Shri D. P. Jatav
5
Shri S. P. Goverdhan
6
Shri G. C. Suklavaidya
7
Shri G. Jayalal
8
Shri Shiv Kumar
9
Smt. Roseline Lakra
10
Shri N. C. Deb Barma
11
Shri K. C. Sharma
12
Shri Girish Chandra
13
Shri B. R. Pantulu
14
Shri T. K. Sen
15
Shri M. Mahirchandani
16
Ms. Mukta Shukla
17
Shri G. S. Grampurohit
18
Shri H. S. Walter
19
Shri Harishikesh Pani
20
Shri S. N. Mishra
21
Smt. Durga Bhaskar
22
Shri B. K. Sarkar
23
Smt. Shukla Wadhwani
24
Shri G. S. Srikishnan
25
Shri H. C. Sharma
26
Shri B. L. Sopori
27
Shri N. G. Das
28
Shri C. D. Sinha
29
Shri J. T. Jirdo
30
Shri N. M. A. Kampti
31
Shri E. S. Sundaramurthy
32
Shri M. Bandopadhyay
33
Shri S. K. Sanyal
34
Shri Avinash Sarmandal
35
Smt. V. Santhanamurthy
36
Shri Vinesh Antani
37
Shri S. K. Roy
38
Shri Gulab Chand
39
Shri R. N. Jha
40
Shri C. K. Mothey
41
Shri T. K. Sharma
42
Shri K. Naik
43
Shri A. K. Padhi
44
Shri A. R. Hardikar
45
Shri Jatinder Gupta
46
Shri U. K. Das
47
Shri Shankar Lal
48
Shri M. R. Kamble
49
Shri H. T. Karande
50
Shri A. F. Sheth
51
Shri G. R. Chapalkar
52
Shri B. R. Rai
53
Smt. T. Angmo
54
Shri Abdul Khaliq
55
Shri S. S. Sharma
56
Athos Fernandes
57
Smt. V. K. Kwatra
58
Shri H. R. Krishnamurthy
59
Shri Jayant S. Erande
60
Shri V. M. Trivedi
61
Shri Keshvanand
62
Shri P. P. Solanki
63
Dr. J. K. Das
64
Shri S. N. Bahera
65
Shri K. B. Gopalan
66
Smt. Aparna Vaish
67
Shri Ram Kumar
68
Shri Shyam Mohan
69
Shri A. K. Sen
70
Shri Tashi Anodus
71
Shri R. G. Narula
72
Shri H. S. Rawal
73
Shri B. J. K. Sharma
74
Shri Naba Kumar Singh
75
Shri S. K. Bose
76
Shri V. K. Godkhindi
77
Smt. Karuna Srivastava
78
Shri M. N. Borthakur
79
Shri Mehmood Hashmi
80
Dr. G. L. Bihal alias Gangesh Gunjan
81
Shri R. Viswanandham
82
Shri J. N. Tudu
83
Shri H. C. Verma
84
Shri Livistone Moses
85
Shri E. W. Dkhar
86
Shri G. N. Chaturvedi
87
Shri Y. P. Sharma
88
Shri N. K. Sharma
89
Smt. K. S. Nirmala Devi
90
Smt. Minakshi R. P. Mishra
91
Shri S. K. Upadyay
92
Shri H. S. Batalvi
93
Shri Srikant Das
94
Shri G. H. Zia
95
Shri Brij Raj Tiwari
96
Smt. Indu Bhai Ramesh
97
Shri A. D. Adwadkar
98
Shri F. M. Kasana
99
Shri R. Moongrey
100
Shri A. K. Rej
101
Shri H. M. Khan
102
Kum. K. T. Meshram
103
Shri S. K. Chatterjee
104
Shri K. D. Gupta
105
Shri P. Krishnaswamy
106
Shri J. C. Mishra
107
Shri P. K. Mitra
108
Smt. Jayanti Purkayastha
109
Shri G. B. Aladakatti
110
Dr. U. B. Mishra
111
Dr. M. C. Shah
112
Shri I. K. Nirala
113
Shri R. R. K. Shree
114
Shri A. T. Dhumbre
115
Shri Prince Jai Singh
116
Shri K. S. Unni
117
Shri Jwala Prasad
118
Kum. Priya Kapur
119
Shri B. R. Nirbhavane
120
Kum. Deepa Chandra
121
Shri A. K. Basumalik
122
Smt. R. P. Namboodiri
123
Smt. V. Ramani Sanwal
124
Shri Mohd. Ashroof Lone
125
Shri F. M. Khan
126
Shri Sirraiuddin Qureshi
127
Shri V. H. Bhamare
128
Shri S. K. Dasgupta
129
Shri T. K. ?ghavacharyulu
130
Shri Nalla Thampi
131
Smt. Nimmi Gupta
132
Shri B. K. Mohanty
133
Ms. Saba Zaidi
134
Kum. Sehzadi Simon
135
Shri Rajam Sabharwal
136
Shri S. V. Sharma
137
Shri M. S. Naik
138
Shri M. N. Sharma
139
Shri V. S. Pansare
140
Shri V. K. Kapoor
141
Shri Kabir Ahmed
142
Shri M. Sasitharan
143
Shri S. Ravidas
144
Shri A. B. Deshpande
145
Smt. Kamalini Dutt
146
Shri Vijaya Kumar
147
Shri Abhiji Dasgupta
148
Shri A. N. Sen
149
Shri A. K. Chakraborty
150
Shri S. H. Paul
151
Smt. Meena Vaishnavi
152
Smt. Sarvat Sanjar
153
Shri Zafar Ahmed
154
Shri G. S. Gunthey
155
Shri J. N. Mukherjee
156
Kum. Bhakit Prabha
157
Shri Majzur -ul-Haq
158
Shri S. S. Rehman
159
Smt. Jyoti Vyas
160
Smt. S. B. Kalra
161
Shri S. C. Dutt
162
Smt. Vimal Issar
163
Shri B. Y. Bhatkar
164
Shri A. P. Sharma
165
Shri S. N. Dhir
166
Shri Chamman Bagga
167
Shri Kumud Nagar
168
Shri P. N. Verma
169
Shri V. N. S. Bhatnagar
170
Shri B. L. Awasthy
171
Shri G. S. Sharma
172
Shri Manohar Pingle
173
Shri Kuber Dutt
174
Shri B. Adhikari
175
Shri A. K. Mohanty
176
Shri D. K. Nath
177
Shri Jaggannath Bose
178
Shri B. A. Badgami
179
Shri G. D. Ghosal
180
Smt. Jutika Dutta
181
Shri P. K. Saha
182
Shri S. S. Royghatak
183
Shri Manbir Singh
184
Smt. Indrani Roy
185
Shri J. L. Zuthsi
186
Shri Mohd. Shamim
187
Shri Peer Mohamed
188
Shri S. Perumal
189
Shri R. N. Felix Paul
190
Shri S. Bhaskar
191
Smt. Yamuna Subramaniam
192
Smt. V. M. Joglekar
193
Shri N. C. Guha
194
Kum. K. S. Hemlatha
195
Shri Ahmad Jalees
196
Shri Iqbal Majeed
197
Shri S. C. Bose
198
Shri Nand Bhardwaj
199
Ms. Sukhjinder
200
Smt. Avinash Yashpal
201
Shri G. M. Shirhatti
202
Smt. Neeraj Vohra
203
Shri M. J. Sahil
204
Shri R. C. Bhakri
205
Shri Yog Bata
206
Smt. Bani Ghose
207
Shri P. L. Handoo
208
Shri R. R. Mishra
209
Shri M. C. Rajkhowa
210
Kum. Sita Nanda
211
Shri D. L. Hakoo
212
Shri Amlendu Sinha
213
Shri N. Rajagopalan
214
Smt. Ved Sinha
215
Shri C. L. Asnani
216
Shri G. R. Bhatt
217
Smt. Sudha Gupta
218
Shri R. Chatterjee
219
Smt. Shamim Ismat
220
Smt. Q. W. Thakur
221
Shri S. Inder Kumar Singh
222
Shri S. K. Sawhney
223
Shri Santosh Misra
224
Shri S. K. Sane
Monday, April 27, 2009
Parliamentary Committee on Working Women in Prasar Bharati"
Dear all
some of you may be aware one of the recommendations made by the Parliamentary Committee on Working Condition of Women Employees of Prasarbharathi. The relevant portion is:-
Recommendation No. 6
Status of promotions in AIR and Doordarshan
58. With regard to promotions in All India Radio and Doordarshan, it is disheartening to note that some categories of employees, especially the UPSC recruited Programme Executives, have been found languishing in the same post without a single promotion for over 20 years. Promotions in higher grades too have been delayed for years. This is, perhaps, something unheard of in a Government set up. The Committee are not satisfied with the reply of the Government that the root cause of the problem is court cases, stays etc. During their study visits, the Committee have been informed that there is acute stagnation in the engineering and administration cadres also. It has been brought to the notice of the Committee that promotional avenues are not opened to Assistant Engineers (Diploma holders) and they have been stagnating for over 20 years. The Committee are extremely disappointed about the sorry state of affairs in the organisation which has hampered the career prospects of a large number of talented people in it. At the same time a ray of hope is seen in the recent promotions in some grades and the proposals made for convening DPCs. The Committee recommend that special efforts should be made to finalise promotions in all grades at the earliest. The Committee feel that women employees are discriminated against in terms of their promotions and hence recommend that their claims should be adequately addressed at the time of finalising promotions. Constitutional provisions for reservation should also be followed in promotions. They also desire that the Prasar Bharati should work out proper and adequate promotional avenues for the Diploma Engineers in the organisation.
Unnikrishnan Unnithan
some of you may be aware one of the recommendations made by the Parliamentary Committee on Working Condition of Women Employees of Prasarbharathi. The relevant portion is:-
Recommendation No. 6
Status of promotions in AIR and Doordarshan
58. With regard to promotions in All India Radio and Doordarshan, it is disheartening to note that some categories of employees, especially the UPSC recruited Programme Executives, have been found languishing in the same post without a single promotion for over 20 years. Promotions in higher grades too have been delayed for years. This is, perhaps, something unheard of in a Government set up. The Committee are not satisfied with the reply of the Government that the root cause of the problem is court cases, stays etc. During their study visits, the Committee have been informed that there is acute stagnation in the engineering and administration cadres also. It has been brought to the notice of the Committee that promotional avenues are not opened to Assistant Engineers (Diploma holders) and they have been stagnating for over 20 years. The Committee are extremely disappointed about the sorry state of affairs in the organisation which has hampered the career prospects of a large number of talented people in it. At the same time a ray of hope is seen in the recent promotions in some grades and the proposals made for convening DPCs. The Committee recommend that special efforts should be made to finalise promotions in all grades at the earliest. The Committee feel that women employees are discriminated against in terms of their promotions and hence recommend that their claims should be adequately addressed at the time of finalising promotions. Constitutional provisions for reservation should also be followed in promotions. They also desire that the Prasar Bharati should work out proper and adequate promotional avenues for the Diploma Engineers in the organisation.
Unnikrishnan Unnithan
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
' The Important Facts All UPSC recruited Programme officers Should remember'- Keep their minds engaged with
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS AND BACKGROUNDER (PROGRAMME EXECUTIVES & STAFF ARTIST)
I THE ISSUE: The present issue relates to two types of employees who have been working in the Programme Wing of AIR and Doordarshan from the beginning:
(a) Regular Programme Officers selected by the UPSC for Group A and B posts and formed part of the regular Programme Cadre.
(b) Contractual employees locally engaged by individual stations and not part of the regular programme cadre.
II. REGULAR PROGAMME CADRE:
a) The Regular Programme cadre starts at the base level post of Transmission Executive (Group C). 75 % are directly recruited by SSC.
b) The next higher grade is Programme Executive (Group B Gazetted - recruited as per the All India Radio (Class II Posts) Recruitment Rules 1962). (Amendments made in 1977 and 1984).
c) 25 % posts of Programme Executives were filled by promotion from Transmission Executives as per the provisions of the said All India Radio Class –II Posts Recruitment Rule, 1962.
d) 75 % of Programme Executives were directly recruited by UPSC with a minimum educational qualification of M.A/ MSc with minimum 2nd Class with ancillary qualifications as per the All India Radio Class –II Posts Recruitment Rule, 1962. (Amended on 22nd Aug 1973 and 23rd Oct 1984)
e) The promotional post of Programme Executive was the Assistant Station Director.(Group A). Other higher levels were Station Director, Deputy Director General and Director General.
f) The posts designated as Assistant Station Director and above belong to Class-I and were governed by All India Radio Class- I Posts Recruitment Rule, 1963. As per this rule, Programme Executive with 3 years approved service was eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Station Director.
III CONTRACTUAL STAFF ARTISTS:
a) There were about 36 categories of Contractual Employees working in AIR and Doordarshan who were generically known as “Staff Artist” or “Artist” depending on the nature of the job performed by them. The terms and conditions of these categories differed and while some were on “Short Term Contract” others were on “Long Term Contract” or even “Casual Contract”.
IV. REGULARISATION SCHEME FOR CONTRACTUAL EMPLOYEES:
a) In May 1982 , following a cabinet decision a scheme was created to regularize those Staff Artist who were on Long Term Contract and had not attained 58 years of age as on 28th February, 1982 as government servants subject to their being screened and found fit by the screening committees. The regularization was to be effective from 06.03.1982.
b) On 23rd October 1984, the All India Radio Class II posts Recruitment Rules 1962 was amended and an enabling Statutory Recruitment Rule i.e All India Radio Group ‘B’ Post Recruitment (Amendment) Rule 1984 into being.
c) Col. 1 of the SCHEDULE of the said Group B RRs of 1984 (which is in vogue as on date) lists only 6 out of 36 categories of contractual employees (who had some similarities with the job profile of Programme Executives). These categories were to be encadered in the grade of Programme Executives, subject to their being found fit for such fitment by the UPSC as provided in Rule 4A(1)(a) to(h).
d) Pertinent to mention here that the performing category of contractual employees like Announcers, Instrumentalists, Drama Voices etc. commonly known as ‘Artists’, who were left out of the ambit of the 1982 regularisation scheme approached the Supreme Court in 1988. Apex Court advised that a fresh scheme may be prepared by including the Artists also, which was created in Nov 1991
V. PROMOTIONS TO ASD FROM THE TWO GROUPS: (PERIOD 1982-1989)
a) 23.10. 1984 - Amendments were also made in All India Radio Class I posts Recruitment Rules of 1963 and All India Radio Group ‘A’ Post Recruitment (Amendment) Rule of 23rd October 1984 was promulgated.
b) This Rule interalia provided for promotion of 6 categories of staff artists to the next higher grade of Assistant Station Director (who were to be encadred in the grade of Programme Executive as per the provisions of 1984 Group B Recruitment Rule). This Rule stipulated statutory eligibility criteria of “5 years regular service” in the grade of Programme Executive including service if any as Programme Executive Selection Grade for promotion to the next higher grade of Assistant Station Director (ASD). Col. 29 of the Rule also lists 3 categories of Staff Artists Viz. Producer (Selection Grade), Science Officer and Producer Grade I who were equated with Programme Executive Selection Grade. Thus instead of previous position of one feeder category as provided in 1963 Class I Rules ; two feeder categories for promotion to the post of ASD came into being.
c) However, in 1985-86 certain erstwhile Staff Artists were promoted as Assistant Station Directors against the vacancies of 1982-85.
d) This was patently against the statutory eligibility requirement of ‘5 years regular service’ in the grade of Programme executive as these Staff Artists were made government servant only w.e.f 6.3.82 and encadered in the grade of Programme Executive by the Group B RRs of 23.10.1984 .
e) Hence, these promotions were challenged by one Programme Executive, Late Maya Israni before Rajasthan High Court (which was subsequently transferred to Jodhpur CAT). Her plea was that the vacancies prior to 23rd October, 1984 (i.e the date when the RRs came into being) cannot be allocated to Staff Artists. The plea was upheld and Staff Artists were reverted.
f) No challenge was thrown to Maya Israni judgment and the same became a settled issue.
g) Staff Artists belonging to Producer (Selection Grade), Science Officer and Producer Grade I were made into ASDs w.e.f 1.1.1986 in violation of the RRs (ignoring the requirement of 5 years regular service in the grade of Programme Executive.)
VI. ISSUES RELATING TO REVIEW DPC 1982-1989
a) In 1990 about 135 Staff Artists were again promoted as ASDs against the vacancies arising from 1984.
b) In 1991, one Staff Artist Mohd. Ashraf Lone challenged this before J&K High Court , with the plea that his contractual service as Staff Artist needs to be reckoned towards the seniority for promotion. He also, challenged rule (e) and (f) of rule 4-A (1) of 1984 Group ‘B’ rules which provided for maintenance of separate seniority of Programme Executive and erstwhile Staff Artist.
c) On 6th July 1997, the J&K High Court turned down Ashraf Lone's challenge to the statutory Group B RRs of 23.10. 1984. His plea for reckoning his contractual service for purposes of promotion was also not allowed.
d) The J&K High Court directed a review dpc by identifying the vacancies in the grade of Assistant Station Director arising from 06.03.1982 to December,1989 and then as per service rule , eligibility conditions and quota ratio provided therein adjustment be made in case of excess allocation to any of the feeder categories.
e) In February 2000 an SLP filed by the Government against the J&K High Court judgment was dismissed by the Supreme Court, making the J&K judgment final.
f) In 2000, on the dismissal of the SLP, Department/Ministry made preparations to undertake review DPC ordered by J&K High Court.
g) AUPO INTERVENES: The same year, (2000), AUPO representing the UPSC recruited Programme Officers approached Principal Bench of CAT apprehending that RRs and eligibility conditions were going to be violated and vacancies in excess of their quota were being allocated to the staff Artists.. CAT thereupon ordered Secretary I&B, to reply to the points raised by AUPO's representation through a speaking order before conducting review DPC.
h) In March 2001, Secretary I&B issued a speaking order to AUPO, while conceding to maintain Quota ratio as per RR, the speaking order reiterated that allocation was being made from 1982 as this was directed by the Supreme Court . ( thereby meaning dismissal of the SLP filed by the Dept.)
i) Immediately, UPSC Recruited Programmes Officers (AUPO) challenged the matter before Principal Bench of CAT (in 2001) as this meant that -
the eligibility criteria of 5 years regular service in the grade of Programme Executive provided in All India Radio Group ‘A’ Rule of 1984 was not being followed .
the contractual service of staff artists was being counted as regular service (which was specifically turned down by the J&K High Court).
a retrospective effect was being given to the recruitment rules of 1984 by which the staff artist/Mohd Ashraf Lone was encadered in the programme cadre which specifically turned down by the J&K High Court.
allocation of vacancies to staff artists in excess of the Quota provided in statutory RRs.
unsettling the settled position of Maya Israni case.
j) Principal Bench of CAT orders in the very first hearing of AUPO’s case that review DPC ordered by the J&K High Courtin Ashraf Lone’s case may be done, but the results cannot be announced until the matter is decided.
k) Consequently, on 2nd and 3rd August 2001 , the Department conducted review DPC ordered by the J&K High Court in Mohd Ashraf Lone's case by making promotion to the Staff Artist with effect from 06.03.1982 itself .
l) In January 2003, CAT dismisses AUPO's appeal. AUPO immediately approaches the Delhi High Court,in March 2003 which also grants stay to the release of results of review DPC.
m) In 2006, AUPO's plea is dismissed by the Delhi High Court. The High Court while not going into the merits of the issues pointed out by AUPO, maintained that the allocation etc. by the department is being done as per the directions of J&K High Court .
n) In 2006, UPSC officers (AUPO) filed an SLP in the Supreme Court which has been admitted and is pending adjudication. There is however no stay on the release of review DPC results conducted in August 2001.
o) Inspite of there being no stay in release of review DPC results, Department is continuing to use old seniority lists of ASD onwards (i.e prior to August 2001 review DPC), to conduct further regular DPCs to higher level posts.
B. MATTERS RELATING TO REVIEW DPC FROM 1990 (POST IBPS SCENARIO) AND PENDING CONTEMPT CASE.
VII. IBPS
a) Meanwhile on 5th November 1990 the IBPS Rules came into effect replacing 1984 Group ‘A’ Rules. This rule created four independent cadres viz. Management Cadres of AIR and Doordarshan and Production Cadres of AIR and DD.
b) Rules 7(6)-A of the IBPS provided that those in the field of consideration for JTS Management Cadre (i.e Programme Executives, Farm Radio Officers ,Extension Officers) of the service would have the option of going for both management and production cadres of AIR and Doordarshan.
c) Similarly, 7(6)-B provided that those in field of consideration for production (i.e former contractual staff artists such as Producers etc) shall have only option to go for Production Cadres of either of the Media.
d) However, in 1990 and 1993 when promotions were held for the JTS Production Cadre of IBPS, Programme Executives in spite of having given their options, were not considered against the production vacancies.( The department took the view that Programme Executive shall only be considered for JTS Production Post once all the producers etc. were exhausted.)
e) The matter was immediately challenged by an UPSC recruited Programme Executive - Sachidanand Singh in 1993.
VIII. REVIEW DPC OF 1993 ORDERED BY APEX COURT :
a) On 30/7/1999, Supreme Court separately ordered review DPC to JTS posts of IBPS in Chetan Naik vs UOI (wherein the issue agitated was whether promotion to JTS is on the basis of seniority cum fitness or selection basis) .
b) In Sept /Oct 2000 review DPC of 1993 DPC for the JTS was held. Programme Executives were however not considered for JTS Production Cadre in spite of AUPO’s objections. UPSC recruits of 1982 are reverted and Contractual Producers are allocated all posts in Production cadre.
IX. AUPO CHALLENGES NON INCLUSION OF PEXS IN PRODUCTION CADRE OF IBPS:
a) In 2001, UPSC Programme Executives represented by AUPO challenged their non consideration in Production cadre of IBPS before CAT PB in O.A. No. 399/2001. (Matter heard along with Sachidanand Singh’s case on the same issue)
b)On 26th March 2004, CAT upheld the contention of AUPO and Sachidanand Singh that as per IBPS Recruitment Rule , Programme Executives are eligible to opt for either Management or Production Cadre and this cannot be denied. CAT directed a review DPC giving options to Programme Executives to be completed within 3 months . (Mattter is still pending after 5 years . Contempt filed by AUPO)
X: CORRECTION OF PEXS SENIORITY LIST BY PSWA:
a) In 2005, PSWA points out through O.A. No. 789/2005 in the Principal Bench of CAT that there are serious discrepancies in the Seniority list of Programme Executives dated 16.7.2004 and more than 200 Trexs promoted in 1988 as programme executives have been wrongly given seniority and promotions from 18.4.83 (whereas there were only 7 vacancies) . PSWA maintains that this will have bearing on review DPC. DG. AIR/Ministry admits to discrepancies and promises to take corrective measures .
b) In 2005 , Dept also admits and reiterates in PSWA vs UOI (O.A. No. 124 /2003) that review DPC is being conducted for Production cadre of IBPS by including the Programme Executives .
c) On 16.4.2007 , Dept issued final corrected seniority list of Programme Executives with corrections from 1983. This seniority list is challenged by Promotee Pexs like SC Naik, Vinod Mehta and Smita Mishra etc.( However the challenge / case was dismissed by CAT Delhi in 2008 )
XI. POSITION OF CONTEMPT PENDING IN IBPS CASE:
a) Meanwhile ( since 2005) Contempt has been filed by AUPO in Principal Bench of CAT, New Delhi as CAT order of 26.3.2004 to conduct review DPC by including Programme Executives in Production posts of IBPS has not been implemented by the Department for over 5 years . Reasons cited for the delay are non-availability of options, CRs , Vigilance Clearance, requirement of creating combined seniority/ eligibility list of PEX and Producers etc. (Court has given many extensions/ last opportunities including asking for Secretary I &B’s personal appearance etc)
b) On 11.12.2008, CAT directs that seniority/eligibility lists created for review DPC be given to AUPO/PSWA while hearing their contempt petitions.
c)On 13.1.2009, AUPO and PSWA receive the combined eligibility/ seniority list of PEXs and Producers .
The list also includes many persons who are not part of the regular programme cadre as they are not covered by the 1982 scheme and is in violation of the statutory rules of 1984. (i.e persons recruited on short term contract after the cut off date of 28th February, 1982 prescribed in Statutory Rule of 1984 and the scheme of 03.05.1982 )
Such ineligible persons recruited on contract upto 1985 have also been :enbloc placed above the UPSC PEXs of 1977-80 batches.
AUPO and PSWA represent that ineligible persons who have been included in the Producers list by circumventing and violating RRs must be immediately removed from the lists as this is patently against the provisions of RR, direction of J&K High Court and the Uma Devi Judgment of the Apex Court.
AUPO and PSWA also point out that corrections made in the PEXs seniority list in the PSWA case have not been incorporated.
d) In Jan/Feb 2009 hearings , Department admits in court to errors in lists. Asks for four to six weeks time . Court grants eight weeks time till April 8th .
I THE ISSUE: The present issue relates to two types of employees who have been working in the Programme Wing of AIR and Doordarshan from the beginning:
(a) Regular Programme Officers selected by the UPSC for Group A and B posts and formed part of the regular Programme Cadre.
(b) Contractual employees locally engaged by individual stations and not part of the regular programme cadre.
II. REGULAR PROGAMME CADRE:
a) The Regular Programme cadre starts at the base level post of Transmission Executive (Group C). 75 % are directly recruited by SSC.
b) The next higher grade is Programme Executive (Group B Gazetted - recruited as per the All India Radio (Class II Posts) Recruitment Rules 1962). (Amendments made in 1977 and 1984).
c) 25 % posts of Programme Executives were filled by promotion from Transmission Executives as per the provisions of the said All India Radio Class –II Posts Recruitment Rule, 1962.
d) 75 % of Programme Executives were directly recruited by UPSC with a minimum educational qualification of M.A/ MSc with minimum 2nd Class with ancillary qualifications as per the All India Radio Class –II Posts Recruitment Rule, 1962. (Amended on 22nd Aug 1973 and 23rd Oct 1984)
e) The promotional post of Programme Executive was the Assistant Station Director.(Group A). Other higher levels were Station Director, Deputy Director General and Director General.
f) The posts designated as Assistant Station Director and above belong to Class-I and were governed by All India Radio Class- I Posts Recruitment Rule, 1963. As per this rule, Programme Executive with 3 years approved service was eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Station Director.
III CONTRACTUAL STAFF ARTISTS:
a) There were about 36 categories of Contractual Employees working in AIR and Doordarshan who were generically known as “Staff Artist” or “Artist” depending on the nature of the job performed by them. The terms and conditions of these categories differed and while some were on “Short Term Contract” others were on “Long Term Contract” or even “Casual Contract”.
IV. REGULARISATION SCHEME FOR CONTRACTUAL EMPLOYEES:
a) In May 1982 , following a cabinet decision a scheme was created to regularize those Staff Artist who were on Long Term Contract and had not attained 58 years of age as on 28th February, 1982 as government servants subject to their being screened and found fit by the screening committees. The regularization was to be effective from 06.03.1982.
b) On 23rd October 1984, the All India Radio Class II posts Recruitment Rules 1962 was amended and an enabling Statutory Recruitment Rule i.e All India Radio Group ‘B’ Post Recruitment (Amendment) Rule 1984 into being.
c) Col. 1 of the SCHEDULE of the said Group B RRs of 1984 (which is in vogue as on date) lists only 6 out of 36 categories of contractual employees (who had some similarities with the job profile of Programme Executives). These categories were to be encadered in the grade of Programme Executives, subject to their being found fit for such fitment by the UPSC as provided in Rule 4A(1)(a) to(h).
d) Pertinent to mention here that the performing category of contractual employees like Announcers, Instrumentalists, Drama Voices etc. commonly known as ‘Artists’, who were left out of the ambit of the 1982 regularisation scheme approached the Supreme Court in 1988. Apex Court advised that a fresh scheme may be prepared by including the Artists also, which was created in Nov 1991
V. PROMOTIONS TO ASD FROM THE TWO GROUPS: (PERIOD 1982-1989)
a) 23.10. 1984 - Amendments were also made in All India Radio Class I posts Recruitment Rules of 1963 and All India Radio Group ‘A’ Post Recruitment (Amendment) Rule of 23rd October 1984 was promulgated.
b) This Rule interalia provided for promotion of 6 categories of staff artists to the next higher grade of Assistant Station Director (who were to be encadred in the grade of Programme Executive as per the provisions of 1984 Group B Recruitment Rule). This Rule stipulated statutory eligibility criteria of “5 years regular service” in the grade of Programme Executive including service if any as Programme Executive Selection Grade for promotion to the next higher grade of Assistant Station Director (ASD). Col. 29 of the Rule also lists 3 categories of Staff Artists Viz. Producer (Selection Grade), Science Officer and Producer Grade I who were equated with Programme Executive Selection Grade. Thus instead of previous position of one feeder category as provided in 1963 Class I Rules ; two feeder categories for promotion to the post of ASD came into being.
c) However, in 1985-86 certain erstwhile Staff Artists were promoted as Assistant Station Directors against the vacancies of 1982-85.
d) This was patently against the statutory eligibility requirement of ‘5 years regular service’ in the grade of Programme executive as these Staff Artists were made government servant only w.e.f 6.3.82 and encadered in the grade of Programme Executive by the Group B RRs of 23.10.1984 .
e) Hence, these promotions were challenged by one Programme Executive, Late Maya Israni before Rajasthan High Court (which was subsequently transferred to Jodhpur CAT). Her plea was that the vacancies prior to 23rd October, 1984 (i.e the date when the RRs came into being) cannot be allocated to Staff Artists. The plea was upheld and Staff Artists were reverted.
f) No challenge was thrown to Maya Israni judgment and the same became a settled issue.
g) Staff Artists belonging to Producer (Selection Grade), Science Officer and Producer Grade I were made into ASDs w.e.f 1.1.1986 in violation of the RRs (ignoring the requirement of 5 years regular service in the grade of Programme Executive.)
VI. ISSUES RELATING TO REVIEW DPC 1982-1989
a) In 1990 about 135 Staff Artists were again promoted as ASDs against the vacancies arising from 1984.
b) In 1991, one Staff Artist Mohd. Ashraf Lone challenged this before J&K High Court , with the plea that his contractual service as Staff Artist needs to be reckoned towards the seniority for promotion. He also, challenged rule (e) and (f) of rule 4-A (1) of 1984 Group ‘B’ rules which provided for maintenance of separate seniority of Programme Executive and erstwhile Staff Artist.
c) On 6th July 1997, the J&K High Court turned down Ashraf Lone's challenge to the statutory Group B RRs of 23.10. 1984. His plea for reckoning his contractual service for purposes of promotion was also not allowed.
d) The J&K High Court directed a review dpc by identifying the vacancies in the grade of Assistant Station Director arising from 06.03.1982 to December,1989 and then as per service rule , eligibility conditions and quota ratio provided therein adjustment be made in case of excess allocation to any of the feeder categories.
e) In February 2000 an SLP filed by the Government against the J&K High Court judgment was dismissed by the Supreme Court, making the J&K judgment final.
f) In 2000, on the dismissal of the SLP, Department/Ministry made preparations to undertake review DPC ordered by J&K High Court.
g) AUPO INTERVENES: The same year, (2000), AUPO representing the UPSC recruited Programme Officers approached Principal Bench of CAT apprehending that RRs and eligibility conditions were going to be violated and vacancies in excess of their quota were being allocated to the staff Artists.. CAT thereupon ordered Secretary I&B, to reply to the points raised by AUPO's representation through a speaking order before conducting review DPC.
h) In March 2001, Secretary I&B issued a speaking order to AUPO, while conceding to maintain Quota ratio as per RR, the speaking order reiterated that allocation was being made from 1982 as this was directed by the Supreme Court . ( thereby meaning dismissal of the SLP filed by the Dept.)
i) Immediately, UPSC Recruited Programmes Officers (AUPO) challenged the matter before Principal Bench of CAT (in 2001) as this meant that -
the eligibility criteria of 5 years regular service in the grade of Programme Executive provided in All India Radio Group ‘A’ Rule of 1984 was not being followed .
the contractual service of staff artists was being counted as regular service (which was specifically turned down by the J&K High Court).
a retrospective effect was being given to the recruitment rules of 1984 by which the staff artist/Mohd Ashraf Lone was encadered in the programme cadre which specifically turned down by the J&K High Court.
allocation of vacancies to staff artists in excess of the Quota provided in statutory RRs.
unsettling the settled position of Maya Israni case.
j) Principal Bench of CAT orders in the very first hearing of AUPO’s case that review DPC ordered by the J&K High Courtin Ashraf Lone’s case may be done, but the results cannot be announced until the matter is decided.
k) Consequently, on 2nd and 3rd August 2001 , the Department conducted review DPC ordered by the J&K High Court in Mohd Ashraf Lone's case by making promotion to the Staff Artist with effect from 06.03.1982 itself .
l) In January 2003, CAT dismisses AUPO's appeal. AUPO immediately approaches the Delhi High Court,in March 2003 which also grants stay to the release of results of review DPC.
m) In 2006, AUPO's plea is dismissed by the Delhi High Court. The High Court while not going into the merits of the issues pointed out by AUPO, maintained that the allocation etc. by the department is being done as per the directions of J&K High Court .
n) In 2006, UPSC officers (AUPO) filed an SLP in the Supreme Court which has been admitted and is pending adjudication. There is however no stay on the release of review DPC results conducted in August 2001.
o) Inspite of there being no stay in release of review DPC results, Department is continuing to use old seniority lists of ASD onwards (i.e prior to August 2001 review DPC), to conduct further regular DPCs to higher level posts.
B. MATTERS RELATING TO REVIEW DPC FROM 1990 (POST IBPS SCENARIO) AND PENDING CONTEMPT CASE.
VII. IBPS
a) Meanwhile on 5th November 1990 the IBPS Rules came into effect replacing 1984 Group ‘A’ Rules. This rule created four independent cadres viz. Management Cadres of AIR and Doordarshan and Production Cadres of AIR and DD.
b) Rules 7(6)-A of the IBPS provided that those in the field of consideration for JTS Management Cadre (i.e Programme Executives, Farm Radio Officers ,Extension Officers) of the service would have the option of going for both management and production cadres of AIR and Doordarshan.
c) Similarly, 7(6)-B provided that those in field of consideration for production (i.e former contractual staff artists such as Producers etc) shall have only option to go for Production Cadres of either of the Media.
d) However, in 1990 and 1993 when promotions were held for the JTS Production Cadre of IBPS, Programme Executives in spite of having given their options, were not considered against the production vacancies.( The department took the view that Programme Executive shall only be considered for JTS Production Post once all the producers etc. were exhausted.)
e) The matter was immediately challenged by an UPSC recruited Programme Executive - Sachidanand Singh in 1993.
VIII. REVIEW DPC OF 1993 ORDERED BY APEX COURT :
a) On 30/7/1999, Supreme Court separately ordered review DPC to JTS posts of IBPS in Chetan Naik vs UOI (wherein the issue agitated was whether promotion to JTS is on the basis of seniority cum fitness or selection basis) .
b) In Sept /Oct 2000 review DPC of 1993 DPC for the JTS was held. Programme Executives were however not considered for JTS Production Cadre in spite of AUPO’s objections. UPSC recruits of 1982 are reverted and Contractual Producers are allocated all posts in Production cadre.
IX. AUPO CHALLENGES NON INCLUSION OF PEXS IN PRODUCTION CADRE OF IBPS:
a) In 2001, UPSC Programme Executives represented by AUPO challenged their non consideration in Production cadre of IBPS before CAT PB in O.A. No. 399/2001. (Matter heard along with Sachidanand Singh’s case on the same issue)
b)On 26th March 2004, CAT upheld the contention of AUPO and Sachidanand Singh that as per IBPS Recruitment Rule , Programme Executives are eligible to opt for either Management or Production Cadre and this cannot be denied. CAT directed a review DPC giving options to Programme Executives to be completed within 3 months . (Mattter is still pending after 5 years . Contempt filed by AUPO)
X: CORRECTION OF PEXS SENIORITY LIST BY PSWA:
a) In 2005, PSWA points out through O.A. No. 789/2005 in the Principal Bench of CAT that there are serious discrepancies in the Seniority list of Programme Executives dated 16.7.2004 and more than 200 Trexs promoted in 1988 as programme executives have been wrongly given seniority and promotions from 18.4.83 (whereas there were only 7 vacancies) . PSWA maintains that this will have bearing on review DPC. DG. AIR/Ministry admits to discrepancies and promises to take corrective measures .
b) In 2005 , Dept also admits and reiterates in PSWA vs UOI (O.A. No. 124 /2003) that review DPC is being conducted for Production cadre of IBPS by including the Programme Executives .
c) On 16.4.2007 , Dept issued final corrected seniority list of Programme Executives with corrections from 1983. This seniority list is challenged by Promotee Pexs like SC Naik, Vinod Mehta and Smita Mishra etc.( However the challenge / case was dismissed by CAT Delhi in 2008 )
XI. POSITION OF CONTEMPT PENDING IN IBPS CASE:
a) Meanwhile ( since 2005) Contempt has been filed by AUPO in Principal Bench of CAT, New Delhi as CAT order of 26.3.2004 to conduct review DPC by including Programme Executives in Production posts of IBPS has not been implemented by the Department for over 5 years . Reasons cited for the delay are non-availability of options, CRs , Vigilance Clearance, requirement of creating combined seniority/ eligibility list of PEX and Producers etc. (Court has given many extensions/ last opportunities including asking for Secretary I &B’s personal appearance etc)
b) On 11.12.2008, CAT directs that seniority/eligibility lists created for review DPC be given to AUPO/PSWA while hearing their contempt petitions.
c)On 13.1.2009, AUPO and PSWA receive the combined eligibility/ seniority list of PEXs and Producers .
The list also includes many persons who are not part of the regular programme cadre as they are not covered by the 1982 scheme and is in violation of the statutory rules of 1984. (i.e persons recruited on short term contract after the cut off date of 28th February, 1982 prescribed in Statutory Rule of 1984 and the scheme of 03.05.1982 )
Such ineligible persons recruited on contract upto 1985 have also been :enbloc placed above the UPSC PEXs of 1977-80 batches.
AUPO and PSWA represent that ineligible persons who have been included in the Producers list by circumventing and violating RRs must be immediately removed from the lists as this is patently against the provisions of RR, direction of J&K High Court and the Uma Devi Judgment of the Apex Court.
AUPO and PSWA also point out that corrections made in the PEXs seniority list in the PSWA case have not been incorporated.
d) In Jan/Feb 2009 hearings , Department admits in court to errors in lists. Asks for four to six weeks time . Court grants eight weeks time till April 8th .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)