Following is my interpretation to your queries, you are asking off & on and it is possible that at every point of clarification I may be wrong but before making your mind ruling point may kindly be consulted.
Point | Explanation |
Consequent upon introduction of Postmaster cadre 116 posts are to be carved out from General line then how these can be reduced from 814 posts ( 94% i.e 75% + 19%) meant for IP line | In para 5 of the postmaster recruitment rules 2010, it has been mentioned that 75% i.e 87 posts will be filled through LDCE from IP line and 25% i.e 29 posts will be filled from general line officials through seniority-cum-fitness. Since these posts have been distributed between IP line (LDCE) and General line officials so these posts can be reduced from total Group ‘B’ strength of 866. |
When 116 posts of Sr. Postmaster have been taken out from the strength of 866 reducing the posts for PS Group ‘B’ to 750 then why percentage is not being worked out as under in each quota: 75% of 750 = 563 ( Seniority cum fitness) 19% of 750 = 143 ( LDCE) Since these posts have been carved out from general line hence now there should be no share for general line now. | Since department has not amended PS Group ‘B’ recruitment rules 1987 hence percentage effect can not be given on reduced post. Presently PS Group ‘B’ recruitment rules 1987 amended from time to time are in force. As per these rules 649 posts in PS Group ‘B’ are to be filled through seniority cum fitness and 165 posts are to be filled through LDCE. Moreover 100% distribution of 750 is to be chalked out and 94% of 750 can not equalize the number of posts in two quotas. Now as per Sr. Postmaster recruitment rules 2010, all the 87 Sr. Postmaster posts allotted to IP line and presently held by PS Group ‘B’ officers are to be filled through LDCE examination only and 29 from General line officials through Seniority cum fitness. Roster of 19% (LDCE) and 6% has been maintained separately hence till recruitment rules 1987 are amended the effect could only be given in 19% and 6% roster. |
How much effect can be there on 649 posts (75%) if recruitment rules are again amended by the department? | It depends on the Govt. but reservation for LDCE can not exceed 50% in any case. Since present percentage is 75:19:6 so this can be 80:20 also. 6% is out now. In case department moves to change the present percentage as above then they will have to change the Sr. Postmaster recruitment rules 2010 where 87 posts have to be distributed in 80:20 or any other agreeable percentage/ratio to give natural justice. In this case the ambition of department to post young and energetic Sr. Postmaster as given in recruitment rules will cease. |
Can general line officials selected through LCDE be posted as Sr. Postmaster, particularly when department has carved out Postmaster cadre from general line and 29 posts of Sr. Postmaster are to be filled through seniority basis. | Department will definitely take options. In case no one opts for Sr. Postmaster then the department can posts juniors as Sr. Postmaster. Moreover seniority for both PS Group ‘B’ & Sr. Postmaster in class-I is combined. However if there is a case from Postmaster Grade III (HSG-I) officials to promote them as Sr. Postmaster on 29 posts earmarked for them on seniority cum fitness under their quota as per recruitment rules 2010, then department will be in a fix. The department has taken exam for 25 vacancies of 2010 and recruitment rules for the same have also been framed in 2010. |
How department has originally calculated 32 vacancies for PS Group ‘B’ when there were only 3 vacancies under 19% quota. | The department has calculated 19% of the 170 vacancies occurred during the year, whereas the vacancy based roster has long back been replaced with post based roster. So I request all the IP/ASPs to read the ruling on post based roster carefully before questioning my credibility.This will be beneficial to you in examination and you will find who is wrong and who is right. The IPASP without establishment and staff branch knowledge is not a perfect Inspector whatsoever examination they may pass. |
No comments:
Post a Comment