Dear All,
In order to facilitate an early conduct of the DPC , and the attempts by the Department to delay the review DPC, AUPO had pleaded in the contempt peition that the Department was deliberately trying to delay the Review DPC by sending in lists of ineligible people to UPSC.
AUPO has also met Chairperson, Prasar Bharati and requested her that the CRISIS being faced by UPSC Pexs should be brought up as an Agenda before the Board..
In a major development , in the contempt petiiton, the court ordered that in order to ascertain the true facts about the undue delay in conducting review DPC from UPSC , a senior officer from UPSC to inform the court about the reasons for undue delay in review DPC /regular DPC and status of the matter.
The UPSC has now filed an affidavit in the contempt petition, stating that the Department has sent an eligiblity list of 804 persons for review and regular DPC’s for the period from 1993 to 1997 by showing their date of appointment from July 1968, to October , 1985 without indicating, how they were appointed.
.The UPSC has willy nilly informed the court, through their affidavit that they are not in a position to conduct the review DPC using the eligibility lists sent by the Department .
The UPSC affidavit states:-
a) before undertaking the review DPC, the UPSC would need , to verify the date of regular service, of staff artists, who were inducted along with the Pexs as per the 1984 rules;
b) that the UPSC would need to verify eligibility of persons who were appointed on contract basis, after the cut off date for becoming government servant,
c) that they would have to verify final seniority list and options
Thus the UPSC affidavit, while rejecting the possibility of conducting the review DPC using the eligibility list sent to them also exposes the fact that DG:AIR and the Ministry have wasted a lot of precious time in preparing meaningless eligibility lists which do not even specify the date of regular service in the grade .
As UPSC says the lists have been prepared “without indicating, how they were appointed.”
The UPSC affidavit states that concerted efforts will be made by UPSC to scrutinize the records with the administrative Ministry at the earliest possible time.
(AUPO would also like to clarify, that this so called eligibility list rejected by the UPSC ( was supported by the PSA). This list contains several irregularities such as using date of engagement on contract as regular service in the grade of Pex. It contains the names of Trexs who had been promoted in 1989 without regular vacancies. It further contains the names of all contractual people regularized in 1989/and by a Scheme of 1991.
At the same time, , this so called eligibility list does not contain the name of even a single UPSC recruited Programme Executive in regular service in the years 1988 and 1991 ….. who have put in 23 and 20 years service!
Meanwhile, AUPO had a meeting with Smt. Mrinal Pande, Chairperson of the Prasar Bharati Board, and Sh. Shiv Kumar, Member (Personnel) . AUPO has ALSO written to the present CEO, PB, Sh. Rajiv Takru asking that the serious crisis of the UPSC Pexs be taken up as an Agenda item before the Prasar Bharati Board . AUPO has pointed out that Stations/Kendras are functioning without Station Directors,while senior UPSC recruited Programme Officers with 27-28 years of regular service are retiring WITHOUT A SINGLE PROMOTION after having been forced to serve under those who were subsequently engaged on contract.
AUPO has submitted that :-
“A solution to this entire matter could be to immediately induct Programme Executives recruited by UPSC in the Indian Broadcasting Programme Service from its initial constitution in 1990 and grant them due promotions thereafter, as per the residency period specified in the rules. As a one time measure, super numerary posts could be created to accommodate even the illegal beneficiaries, so that they do not suffer undue hardship. A formula of placing the UPSC recruitees over the ineligible contractual persons could be worked out to avoid further complications and future litigation. Fresh recruitment which has not been done for many years, should also be done at the lower levels to strengthen the organization".
Jose Jude Mathew
In order to facilitate an early conduct of the DPC , and the attempts by the Department to delay the review DPC, AUPO had pleaded in the contempt peition that the Department was deliberately trying to delay the Review DPC by sending in lists of ineligible people to UPSC.
AUPO has also met Chairperson, Prasar Bharati and requested her that the CRISIS being faced by UPSC Pexs should be brought up as an Agenda before the Board..
In a major development , in the contempt petiiton, the court ordered that in order to ascertain the true facts about the undue delay in conducting review DPC from UPSC , a senior officer from UPSC to inform the court about the reasons for undue delay in review DPC /regular DPC and status of the matter.
The UPSC has now filed an affidavit in the contempt petition, stating that the Department has sent an eligiblity list of 804 persons for review and regular DPC’s for the period from 1993 to 1997 by showing their date of appointment from July 1968, to October , 1985 without indicating, how they were appointed.
.The UPSC has willy nilly informed the court, through their affidavit that they are not in a position to conduct the review DPC using the eligibility lists sent by the Department .
The UPSC affidavit states:-
a) before undertaking the review DPC, the UPSC would need , to verify the date of regular service, of staff artists, who were inducted along with the Pexs as per the 1984 rules;
b) that the UPSC would need to verify eligibility of persons who were appointed on contract basis, after the cut off date for becoming government servant,
c) that they would have to verify final seniority list and options
Thus the UPSC affidavit, while rejecting the possibility of conducting the review DPC using the eligibility list sent to them also exposes the fact that DG:AIR and the Ministry have wasted a lot of precious time in preparing meaningless eligibility lists which do not even specify the date of regular service in the grade .
As UPSC says the lists have been prepared “without indicating, how they were appointed.”
The UPSC affidavit states that concerted efforts will be made by UPSC to scrutinize the records with the administrative Ministry at the earliest possible time.
(AUPO would also like to clarify, that this so called eligibility list rejected by the UPSC ( was supported by the PSA). This list contains several irregularities such as using date of engagement on contract as regular service in the grade of Pex. It contains the names of Trexs who had been promoted in 1989 without regular vacancies. It further contains the names of all contractual people regularized in 1989/and by a Scheme of 1991.
At the same time, , this so called eligibility list does not contain the name of even a single UPSC recruited Programme Executive in regular service in the years 1988 and 1991 ….. who have put in 23 and 20 years service!
Meanwhile, AUPO had a meeting with Smt. Mrinal Pande, Chairperson of the Prasar Bharati Board, and Sh. Shiv Kumar, Member (Personnel) . AUPO has ALSO written to the present CEO, PB, Sh. Rajiv Takru asking that the serious crisis of the UPSC Pexs be taken up as an Agenda item before the Prasar Bharati Board . AUPO has pointed out that Stations/Kendras are functioning without Station Directors,while senior UPSC recruited Programme Officers with 27-28 years of regular service are retiring WITHOUT A SINGLE PROMOTION after having been forced to serve under those who were subsequently engaged on contract.
AUPO has submitted that :-
“A solution to this entire matter could be to immediately induct Programme Executives recruited by UPSC in the Indian Broadcasting Programme Service from its initial constitution in 1990 and grant them due promotions thereafter, as per the residency period specified in the rules. As a one time measure, super numerary posts could be created to accommodate even the illegal beneficiaries, so that they do not suffer undue hardship. A formula of placing the UPSC recruitees over the ineligible contractual persons could be worked out to avoid further complications and future litigation. Fresh recruitment which has not been done for many years, should also be done at the lower levels to strengthen the organization".
Jose Jude Mathew
