Dear All,
I am typing the relevant extracts of affidavit filed by DG,AIR &
DG:DD on 23/5/2011 in response to affidavit filed by UPSC in
contempt petition filed by AUPO .
A. Please note that the department is trying to act as if the UPSC
requires sosme negligible clarifications with regard to only one
para in the UPSC's affidavit. A careful reading of the relevant para 6
of UPSC's affidavit (quoted below) shows that the UPSC has pointed out
that the real reason for non conduct of review DPC is that four vital
requirements for conduct of DPC has not been taken into account by the
Department in eligiblity lists sent to the UPSC.
The UPSC requires clarifications on the following four points :
(i) date from which regular service of Staff Artists who were
inducted as Programme Executive as per the All India Radio (Group B
Posts) Recruitment (Amendment) Rules 1984 to be counted.
(ii) eligibility of those persons who were appointed on contract
basis after the cut off date for becoming government servant
(iii) final seniority list and year wise eligibility list and
(iv) consideration of options to be given to Programme Executives for
promotion as per the Hon’ble CAT order dated 26.3.2004 in OA
No.399/2001 and 2343/2001.
B. The Deparment in their reply affidavit reproduced below are trying
to act as if the concerns raised by the UPSC have already been
addressed in their meeting held with the UPSC on 19th August 2010.
These concerns were raised by UPSC last month when the court asked for
their views on the matter in their affidavit . This is long after the
meeting of 19th August 2010.
C. Further, it is understood that the UPSC has also communicated vide
letters to the Ministry why their explanation is not plausible. It
is understood that the Ministry is in receipt of these letters and
that the concerns raised by the UPSC to the Ministry include the
following:-
i) If the date agreed by the High level Committee for regularisation
as government servant according to the Ministry is 6.3.1982, why are
the eligiblity lists showing regular service of contractual employees
as 1968- 1981 etc .
ii). Further, if the second group of staff artists engaged on
contract after 28-2-1982/6.3.1982 like Baseb Dutta Mohanty ,
T.Chamiyar etc were by the Ministry's own admission regularised by the
Ministry's scheme on 29.11.1991, why is their regular service in the
equated grade of Programme Executive being shown from their date of
initial engagement on contract of 1983/1984 etc.
C. The Department is also desperately trying to confuse and complicate
the matter by dragging in the Ashraf Loner review DPC for the period
1982-1989 with this contempt case. This contempt case is for
implementation of the judgment of the Hon'ble CAT on 26.3.2004 to
include Pexs in the production posts of the IBPS.
regards
Jose.
I am typing the relevant extracts of affidavit filed by DG,AIR &
DG:DD on 23/5/2011 in response to affidavit filed by UPSC in
contempt petition filed by AUPO .
A. Please note that the department is trying to act as if the UPSC
requires sosme negligible clarifications with regard to only one
para in the UPSC's affidavit. A careful reading of the relevant para 6
of UPSC's affidavit (quoted below) shows that the UPSC has pointed out
that the real reason for non conduct of review DPC is that four vital
requirements for conduct of DPC has not been taken into account by the
Department in eligiblity lists sent to the UPSC.
The UPSC requires clarifications on the following four points :
(i) date from which regular service of Staff Artists who were
inducted as Programme Executive as per the All India Radio (Group B
Posts) Recruitment (Amendment) Rules 1984 to be counted.
(ii) eligibility of those persons who were appointed on contract
basis after the cut off date for becoming government servant
(iii) final seniority list and year wise eligibility list and
(iv) consideration of options to be given to Programme Executives for
promotion as per the Hon’ble CAT order dated 26.3.2004 in OA
No.399/2001 and 2343/2001.
B. The Deparment in their reply affidavit reproduced below are trying
to act as if the concerns raised by the UPSC have already been
addressed in their meeting held with the UPSC on 19th August 2010.
These concerns were raised by UPSC last month when the court asked for
their views on the matter in their affidavit . This is long after the
meeting of 19th August 2010.
C. Further, it is understood that the UPSC has also communicated vide
letters to the Ministry why their explanation is not plausible. It
is understood that the Ministry is in receipt of these letters and
that the concerns raised by the UPSC to the Ministry include the
following:-
i) If the date agreed by the High level Committee for regularisation
as government servant according to the Ministry is 6.3.1982, why are
the eligiblity lists showing regular service of contractual employees
as 1968- 1981 etc .
ii). Further, if the second group of staff artists engaged on
contract after 28-2-1982/6.3.1982 like Baseb Dutta Mohanty ,
T.Chamiyar etc were by the Ministry's own admission regularised by the
Ministry's scheme on 29.11.1991, why is their regular service in the
equated grade of Programme Executive being shown from their date of
initial engagement on contract of 1983/1984 etc.
C. The Department is also desperately trying to confuse and complicate
the matter by dragging in the Ashraf Loner review DPC for the period
1982-1989 with this contempt case. This contempt case is for
implementation of the judgment of the Hon'ble CAT on 26.3.2004 to
include Pexs in the production posts of the IBPS.
regards
Jose.
No comments:
Post a Comment