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.