OPEN LETTER TO LEADERS OF AICEIA & AIACEGEO
Dear Comrades,
With much difficulties a joint meeting of all three Associations was held at Chennai and it was unanimously decided to submit a representation under the banner of Joint Forum to challenge the draft Gr-A RRs circulated by CBEC. But due to some mis understanding no progress has been made in submitting such representation. Mean while I have made discussions with officials of CBEC and DOPT on such issue.
· The Officials of DOPT/CBEC , who were instrumental on examination of the last CR proposal of CBEC, are having the opinion that the temporary AC posts have been created to fill up by promotees only.
· Hence Gr-A RRs are to be based on the approval of CR by Cabinet (as it was approved by the cabinet that the temporary posts are for 5 years and no temporary AC will get further promotion and these are to be filled up by way of promotions only), the RRs are to be based on such provision.
· It is not open either to CBEC or to DOPT to deviate such provisions approved by Cabinet.
· However, they are having the opinion that the incumbent of such temporary AC would not be reverted after 2018 till he gets further promotion or retires from service and like the regular posts there can be a provision that continuance of such temporary posts should be based on a further study considering the work load and level stagnation in feeder cadres etc.
· They are having the opinion also that the representation against the draft RRs should be based on such two points.
· They cautioned that if temporary posts will be merged with regular posts and there should be a provision to allow further promotions to temporary ACs , then 50% of such posts are to be allotted to direct recruitees.
· As regards increase of promotee quota, promotion to STS, allowing weightatge, post based roaster, and to maintain parity starting from sub-feeder grades etc., cabinet approval is required basing on a recommending proposal of parent department routed through DOE, DOPT , Cabinet sub-committee headed by Cabinet Secretary, FM, Minister of DOPT etc.
· Now I would like to say that to solve these issues a recommending proposal is required to be prepared by CBEC to submit it to next forum .
· First initiation is required to be made by CBEC.
· How CBEC will start such initiation?
· In this connection a systematic representation is to be submitted by all Associations.
· Representations through MPs are also required to be submitted and thereafter, all Associations should meet Ministers / Board officials to put pressure on CBEC to call for a Board meeting and to take a final decision on such issues. Then only progress can be made on such burning issues.
Considering all such issue and also to solve the so called mis under standing , I have enclosed the draft forwarding letter and suggestions in Annexure-A for your information. If it suits to all of you then please fix a date to gather our selves to put our signatures.
· Thanks to all of you. Waiting for your response.
LOKANATH MISHRA
DRAFT FORWARDING LETTER.
JOINT FORUM
OF
ALL INDIA CENTRAL EXCISE INSPECTORS ASSOCIATION
ALL INDIA ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL EXCISE GAZETTED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS &
INDIAN REVENUE SERVICE (CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE) PROMOTEE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION.
No. JCA/2015/ Dated.
To
Shri Kaushal Srivastava
The Chairman,
Central Board of Excise and Customs,
North Block, New Delhi-110001
Sir,
Sub: Draft amendments in the IRS(C&CE) Gr-A Rules 2012-
Submission of Comments/Objections- Regarding.
Kindly refer to the CBEC F.No. A12018/3/2014-AD-II, dated 08.12.2014, on the above subject.
In this regard, it is to submit that all the above three Associations representing 42,000 nos. of Gr-B officers and 3,500 nos. of promote Gr-A officers of the Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Department. We have gone through the draft amendments in the IRS( C&CE) Gr-A Rules, 2012 circulated by CBEC vide above said letter and found that many clauses of these Rules are not framed/drafted as per Govt. /DOPT guidelines. We have also found that many clauses in these draft rules are detrimental to the carriers prospective of our members. We highlighted all such issue in the Annexure (enclosed), with a request to consider the same and make suitable lawful changes while finalizing the draft rules by CBEC. Further we would like to state that the said proposed draft amendment is anti-staff and appears to be drafted and proposed only to safe guard the interest of elite class. The role of Gr-B Executive , though referred repeatedly as important, the attempt in RR amendments is demoralizing and appears with an intent to destroy the fabric of cordiality, and inflict hatred and indiscipline in the Group B feeder cadre against the Group A.
The very purpose in framing the Human Resource Management policy through RRs, has violated the Article 309; by not maintaining fairness and equity in recruitment/placement/promotions and other service related matters for Gr-B Executives. Parity is the basic concept of Indian Constitution, hence it is required to frame the Gr-A Recruitment Rules to maintain parity in promotions amongst the three base cadres ( I.e. Inspector, CE, Inspector ,PO and Inspector, Examiner)
It is also requested that the representatives of above three Associations may also be given an opportunity jointly to present our case in person before the Board. Your honour may like to convey a Board meeting there after to consider our grievance points as stated in the Annexure . We also reserve our right to add, amend or delete any submission made herein in the interest of our members.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,
Enclo- As above.
ANNEXURE
Suggestions by the joint forum of the Associations to amend Indian Revenue Service (Customs and Central Excise) Group A Recruitment Rules 2014 as circulated by CBEC
1.Suggested amendment for sub-Rule 4(1)
For the words, 'The authorised permanent strength in all grades of service and temporary strength in the grade IX of the service', the words, ‘The authorised strength in all grades of service’ shall be substituted.
Reason
Under Rule 2(g) of the RRs, the ‘Post’ includes permanent as well as temporary strength in all grades. Accordingly, authorised strength constitutes appointment made to any post under Indian Revenue Service (Customs and Central Excise) Group A as defined under Rule 2(g). Besides, the temporary posts are authorised posts created by virtue of cadre restructuring, for functional necessity. So use of the words ‘temporary’ or ‘permanent’ is superfluous.
As far as the proposed ‘Grade IX’ is concerned, it may be pointed out that creation of a separate Grade (grade IX) for the Assistant Commissioner (Junior Time Scale) Customs and Central Excise, appointed against temporary posts, lower than the Grade (VIII) of Assistant Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Junior Time Scale), is against the basic tenets of devising any RRs. This arbitrary gradation is a result of misconception in understanding the distinction between the term ‘posts’and expression ‘an officer appointed in a grade to such posts’. Appointment in a grade may take place through different modes of selection (i.e. by direct recruitment or by promotion) and through different nature of posts (i.e., permanent or temporary). The grade, however, does not change because of such variations in manner of selection and nature of posts and remains same. Therefore, an officer shall be treated to have been appointed in a single grade, say Assistant Commissioner, grade, irrespective of nature of Post or nature of selection. Creation of separate grade by way of linking it to the nature of posts (permanent or temporary) or mode of selection (either direct recruitment or by promotion) is grossly anomalous and is unfair with regard to framing RRs. Besides, the Central Excise Act, 1944 or Customs Act 1962 or Finance Act 1994 makes no distinction between temporary and regular posts of Assistant Commissioner with regards to functions and powers.
Furthermore, there is no precedence of creating different grades in the same ranks with the same grade pay. So such a sub-division in the grade of Assistant Commissioner is untenable. It is to be kept in mind that the officers working as Assistant commissioner in the temporary posts are already permanent /regular employees of Govt. of India with even more than 30 years of service behind them.
So, any reference to ‘Grade IX’, wherever it appears in RRs, needs to be omitted.
2. Suggested Amendment for sub-Rule 4(2)
The words ' permanent and temporary ' in this sub-Rule should be deleted.
Reason
That in terms of definition under Rule 2(g) of the RRs, the authorised strength itself indicates and includes permanent as well as temporary posts. Accordingly, the words ‘permanent and temporary ' are superfluous.
3.Suggested Amendment for sub-Rule 4(3)(i)
This sub-Rule shall be substituted in the following manner:
‘The continuation of the posts in temporary strength, as specified in Schedule-I, beyond the period, for which these are initially created, shall be reviewed by the Govt based on the factors like workload, stagnation etc. However, as long as an officer after appointment in the grade of Assistant commissioner against such posts in temporary strength remains in that grade, such posts in temporary strength against which the said officer is appointed shall not be declared as abolished.’
Reasons:
The first line is superfluous as it is already mentioned in sub-Rules 4(1) and 4(2) of this Recruitment Rules that any post, be it permanent or temporary shall be specified in Schedule-I. It is also not necessary to mention the trifling details like date on which any post has been created or likely to be terminated, be it permanent or temporary. The Recruitment Rules should be confined to recruitment modalities and not details of creation of posts.
The first part of the second line regarding continuation of the posts in temporary strength is contrary to the provision of the sub-Rule 4(2) of this RRs itself where it is provided that the continuation of the posts, be it temporary and permanent, shall be determined by the Govt. from time to time depending on the workload. Accordingly, the provision regarding continuity of the posts in temporary posts should be in conformity with the said provision in the manner as proposed. This will also ensure the functional justification of creation of any post.
The second part of the second line is based on complete misunderstanding between the term ‘post’ and the expression ‘an officer appointed in a grade through such post’ either by way of promotion or direct recruitment or through permanent post or temporary post. Once the officer is appointed in a particular grade, he or she will be regarded as belonging to the service under which the posts exist and in this respect, no distinction can be made between officers appointed either to a permanent post or a temporary post, by direct recruitment or by way of promotion. The continuation of the service of that officer in that grade is in no way dependent on the fate or tenure of the post. So the incorporation made above to this effect linking the tenure of post and continuation of service is outrageous and beyond the purview of law. As long as an officer, after appointment in a particular grade against a post (permanent or temporary), remains in that grade in conformity with the service conditions, the post (permanent or temporary) against which the said officer is appointed cannot be declared as abolished.
Moreover, the 2nd line is also contrary to the Cabinet approval under CBEC F.No. A. 11019/08/2013- Ad.IV, dated 18.12.2013, para 7 of which states that " wherever the posts recommended for abolition are filled up at present, such abolition will be effective on such posts being relinquished by the existing incumbents by way of promotion, transfer, retirement, resignation etc".
Similar amendment regarding continuation of temporary posts has also been suggested through insertion of ‘Note’ in Schedule-I of the RRs.
4. Suggested Amendment for sub-Rule 4(3)(ii)
This sub-Rule shall be substituted in the following manner:
‘As and when the vacancies arise against posts in temporary strength, as specified in sl. No. 8 of Schedule-I, the same shall be filled up by promotion only in accordance with the procedure prescribed in sub-Rule 5(3)(b) read with relevant entries of Schedule-III(sl. No. 8) and Schedule-IV(sl. No. 8)
Reasons:
The amendments proposed are in conformity with the amendments proposed in sub-Rule 4(1), Schedule-I, III and IV of the RRs opposing arbitrary, discriminatory and unfair creation of separate grade IX for Assistant Commissioners promoted in temporary strength of posts defined and accordingly proposing deletion of sl. No.9 of all the Schedules mentioned.
5. Suggested Amendment for sub-Rule 5(2)
1) The sub-Rule 5(2) shall be renumbered as sub-Rule 5(2)((i) and The words ‘fifty percent’ shall be substituted by ‘ not more than ten per cent’.
2) A new sub-Rule 5(2)(ii) shall be inserted after sub-Rule 5(2)(i) in the following manner:
‘A post-based roster shall be maintained earmarking the posts meant for direct recruits and the posts meant for promotion in the ratio mentioned in sub-Rule 5(2) (i) and sub-Rule 5(3)(a) respectively of the RR.’
Reasons for amendment (1)
In view of the highly adverse ratio (1: 15 approx) existing between the consolidated Gr B Executive officers and their immediate promotion grade of Assistant Commissioner, even after restructuring, whatever has been done in the Cadre restructuring shall be diluted and the stagnation is bound to return in short span of 1 or 2 years until and unless, immediate other measures like promotion to STS, granting 'weightage' andparity with counterparts are taken. Otherwise, the next lot will continue to stagnate. Therefore, as an important measure, the ratio of 50:50 between the posts meant for direct recruit Assistant Commissioner and that of the promotee Assistant Commissioner should be changed to 10 (maximum) :90 (minimum). Besides promotee Assistant Commissioners can immediately be put to functional utility as they are adequately trained with long real-time experience.
Reasons for amendment (2)
The provision of maintenance of post-based roster should be incorporated here without which there will always be a possibility of erosion in promotion quota or direct recruit quota at any point of time. The provision of maintenance of post-based roster should be incorporated as there will always be an erosion in promotion / direct recruit quota at any point of time. To give an example -
The IC&CE Gr-A Recruitment Rules 2012 (earlier of 1987, 1998), stipulates the entry-level Group-A post of AC(also termed as JTS -Junior Time Scale) in the ratio of 50% DR(UPSC) & 50% by Promotion(amongst 3 feeder categories).
The then sanctioned strength of JTS post(Assistant Commissioner) is '949', while that of STS(Deputy Commissioner) is '601'. The promotions are given to the JTS level 50% posts i.e. against '475'.
The Civil List published by CBEC on official website "http :// www. cbec.gov.in/deptt_offcr/civil-list2014-part2.pdf", for 01.01.2014, gives in Part-2, the list of Gr-A officers in the grade of AC/DC. This list consists of total '1284' Names['950' Direct-UPSC(DC:291+AC:439+AC-Probationer:220), and '334' Promotees(Cust Appraiser:198+Supdt Cus-P:18+Supdt CX: 118 )].
This indicates that against the '949' JTS strength(even leaving aside the DR officers who have been promoted by now, strength of whom is also required to be added); the DR are 'more than 659(439+220+higher group A)', while promotees are just '334'. This is unjustified. The DR should not be more than '475'.
6. Suggested Amendment for sub-Rule 5(3)(a)
1) The sub-Rule 5(3)(a) shall be renumbered as sub-Rule 5(3)(a)(i) and
the words ‘fifty percent’ shall be substituted by ‘ninety per cent or more’.
2) A new sub-Rule 5(3)(a)(ii) shall be inserted after sub-Rule 5(3)(a)(i) in the following manner:
‘A post-based roster shall be maintained earmarking the posts meant for direct recruits and the posts meant for promotion in the ratio mentioned in sub-Rule 5(2)(i) and sub-Rule 5(3)(a)(i) respectively of the RR.’
Reasons for amendment (1) & (2)
Same as given against sub-rule 5(2) above.
7. Suggested Amendment for sub-Rule 5(3) (b)
The entire sub-rule shall be substituted in the following manner:
‘One hundred percent of the vacancies in Grade VIII (Junior Time Scale) of the service specified in sl. No. 8 of the Schedule-I i.e., Assistant Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise in the temporary strength shall be filled by promotion from amongst the officers mentioned in the sub-rule 5(3)(a)(i) above’.
Reasons
The amendments proposed are in conformity with the amendments proposed in sub-Rule 4(1), Schedule-I, III and IV of the RRs opposing arbitrary, discriminatory and unfair creation of separate grade IX for Assistant Commissioners, promoted in temporary strength of posts defined and accordingly proposing deletion of sl. No.9 of all the Schedules mentioned.
8. Suggested Amendment for the ‘Note’ appended to after sub-Rule 5(3) (b) and the sub-Rule 5(4)
Both the ‘Note’ appended to after sub-Rule 5(3) (b) and the sub-Rule 5(4) shall besubstituted by one new sub-Rule 5(4) in the following manner:
‘The promotion to the vacancies in Grade VIII (Junior Time Scale), i.e., Assistant Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise from amongst the all categories of officers, mentioned in the sub-Rule 5(3) (a) (i), on the basis of a combined eligibility list of all those categories of officers shall be prepared to maintain parity in promotions to Gr-A amongst all three base level Executive grades ( i.e Inspector of Central Excise/Preventive Officer of Customs /Examiner of Customs)’. Before preparing this list, all of the base level executive grades belonging to same year shall be brought at par in the matter of promotions as also promised by the CBEC during the presentation on cadre restructuring made on 18.01.12.
Reasons
(A) The disparity in promotional opportunity amongst the 3 feeder streams of Supdt. Central Excise, Supdt. Customs Preventive and Appraiser aswell as basis feeder (feeder to feeder) streams (i.e., Inspector of Central Excise, Preventive Officer and Examiner of Customs) is well known and has been categorically acknowledged by the Board in the Minutes of the meeting dated 11.02.2011. In the said Minutes, it was also pointed out that promotion on the basis of ratio (even after revision) is not enough to redress the disparity and that the promotion to JTS level on the basis of base cadre parity is a much better redress under the present dispensation. Considering the acute stagnation in the grade of Superintendent of Central Excise, relaxation of Recruitment Rules can be resorted to in respect of a class or category of persons as per provision of Para 4.3, of PART IV on AMENDMENTS AND RELAXATIONS, of 'the Guidelines on Framing/Amendment/Relaxation of RRs' issued by DoP&T in 2010. This is also in conformity with the Article 309 of the Constitution of India which is primarily designed to obtain fairness and equity in recruitment, promotions and other service related matters. As the Superintendents of Central Excise are getting just one promotion unlike the officers of other Department, RRs should be framed accordingly to bring justice, fairness and parity.
(B)The separate provision for ‘Note’ after sub-Rule 5(3) (b) is not necessary as a combined eligibility list for all categories of Group B officers after bringing them year wise at par in the matter of promotion, mentioned in the sub-Rule 5(3) (a) (i), have been proposed to be prepared in the amended consolidated sub-Rule 5(4) which includes the categories mentioned in the said ‘Note’.
9. Suggested Amendment for Rule 5(4)
It should be substituted as below:
The vacancies to be filled by promotion shall be filled from the categories mentioned in 5 3 (a) (i) after bringing them year wise at par in the matter of promotion.
Suggested Amendment by way of insertion of of ‘Note’ after the amended sub-Rule 5(4)
The following ‘Note’ shall be inserted after the sub-Rule 5(4) in the following manner:
“Note : It must be ensured that at all points of time, the parity in promotion in respect all the 3 feeder cadres to Grade VIII, i.e., amongst the cadres of Supdt. Central Excise, Supdt. Customs Preventive and Appraiser as well as basis feeder (feeder to feeder) streams (i.e., Inspector of Central Excise, Preventive Officer and Examiner of Customs), is maintained with reference to such eligibility list (to maintain base cadre parity in promotions to Gr-A.) .
Reasons
10. Suggested Amendment for sub-Rule 5(5) (i)
The entire sub-Rule shall be substituted in the following manner:
‘Appointments in the grade VII of Deputy Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Senior Time Scale) shall be made by promotion from amongst the officers in the lower grades in the following manner:
i) Officers who have either completed 4 years of regular service in the grade VIII or grade pay of Rs.5400/-,
or
ii) Officers who have completed 6 years of combined regular service in the feeder grade to Grade VIII and feeder grade to feeder grade of Grade VIII, taken together,
whichever is earlier, shall be eligible for promotion in the Grade of Deputy Commissioner(Senior time Scale) in Grade VII.
Reason
(A) The Deputy Commissioner of Customs and Central excise (Senior Time Scale) in Grade VII is not a distinct functional grade with any higher level of responsibilities or any change of command than those associated with the grade of Assistant Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Junior Time Scale) in Grade VIII. The creation of such grade is essentially mitigatory and intended to alleviate the stagnation. It is akin to grant of the scale of pay in the mode of prevalent non-functional selection grade (NFSG).
(B) Most of the Group ‘B’ gazetted officers in the Central as well as State governments are being promoted directly to a Senior Time Scale (STS) posts with Grade Pay of Rs. 6600/- in PB-3 including CSS, CPWD, Railway Board, CSSS, AFHQ, Rajya Sabha Secretariat, Forest services, Police services, Foreign Services, Engineering services, State services etc., whereas the Group ‘B’ gazetted officers of CBEC are being promoted merely to a Junior Time Scale (JTS) post with Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/- in PB-3. These Gr-A officers should also be granted promotion directly to a Senior Time Scale post with Grade Pay of Rs. 6600/- in PB-3 to maintain parity with similarly placed employees of CSS & other Central Ministries/Departments.
Apart from the promotion directly to STS post, the counterparts of Gazetted Gr-B officers of CBEC are also given benefit of seniority in group ‘A’ at many places in lieu of the service rendered by them in group ‘B’ in various services in Railways, Administrative Services, Police Services, State Services etc., these group ‘B’ gazetted officers are also allowed the weightage of minimum of four years at the time of entry into group ‘A’, giving them the due benefit of seniority in lieu of the service rendered by them in the group ‘B’.
The position in CPWD is even more encouraging where an officer with a grade pay of Rs. 4600/- is being directly promoted to a post with a grade pay of Rs. 6600/- (STS) and further directly to a post with the grade pay of Rs. 8700/- . Thus, they don’t need to serve on a post with a grade pay of Rs. 4800/-, 5400/- and 7600/- for promotion to the post with a grade pay of 8700/- after entry into a post with grade pay of Rs. 4200/-. Whereas in CBEC the Inspector Central Excise who is recruited at Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- is not allowed to move beyond the Rs.5400/- grade pay.
It is known fact that, the Group-B non Gazetted officers of CBEC and Assistants of the Central Secretariat Services (CSS), being analogous posts, are recruited through a common entrance examination conducted by the Staff Selection Commission, with common scale of pay.
(C) The condition, given in the last line of the sub-Rule 5(5)(i) of the draft circulated by the Board, that “the service rendered by the officers in temporary post in Junior Time scale shall not be counted as ‘regular service’ for the purpose of promotion to higher grade(s)” is in conflict with the definition of ‘regular service’ given in sub-rule 2(h) ibid. It flows from complete misunderstanding between the term ‘post’ and the expression ‘an officer appointed in a grade through such post’ either by way of promotion or direct recruitment or through permanent post or temporary post. Once the officer is appointed in a particular grade, he or she will be regarded as belonging to the service under which the posts exist and in this respect, no difference can be made between officers appointed either through permanent post or through temporary post, by direct recruit or by way of promotion. The continuation or counting of the regular service of that officer in that grade is in no way dependent on the fate or tenure of the post. So the service rendered by an officer in the grade of Assistant Commissioner (junior time scale) has to be regarded as ‘regular service’ irrespective of appointment by way of promotion or direct recruitment or to a permanent post or temporary post. Therefore, the above provision which seeks to preclude any further elevation of the Assistant Commissioners promoted against temporary posts is wholly arbitrary and legally untenable.
11. Suggested Amendment for sub-rule 5(5)(iii)
The entire sub-rule 5(5)(iii) shall be deleted.
Reason
The Rule is clearly violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It has emanated from the complete misunderstanding and misconception of creating separate grade for Assistant commissioner appointed through temporary strength. The fact, that the same is completely anomalous and unjust, has already been elaborated in the ‘reasons’ given under the proposed amendment of sub-Rule 4(1) of the draft RR circulated by the Board. The contention that the service rendered by the Assistant Commissioners appointed through temporary strength can not be treated as regular service is also equally unjust and bad in law for the reasons elaborated in the ‘reasons’ (B) given under sub-Rule 5(5)(i) above. Accordingly, this sub-Rule 5(5)(iii) deserves to be deleted in its entirety. The manner of appointment in the grade of Deputy Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Senior Time Scale) (Grade VII) is already incorporated exhaustively in the sub-Rule 5(5)(i) of the proposed amendment.
12. Suggested Amendment for sub-Rule 6
The words ‘by promotion in Junior scale’ shall be deleted.
Reason
This clause is essentially meant for new entrants. The officers on promotion after more than 25 years of service and endowed with vast experience should be given due weightage and be exempted from such probation/confirmation.
13. Suggested Amendment for Schedule-I to the RR
The following amendments shall be made in respect of Schedule- I:
(A) Sl. No. 8 The entries in Col. (3) showing ‘Number of Posts’, shall besubstituted in the following manner:
(a) Permanent strength- 1249
(b) Temporary strength- 2118*
(B) Sl. No. 9 To be deleted entirely
(C) The existing ‘Note’ at the end of Schedule_I shall remain as ‘Note 1’
and a ‘Note 2’ shall be inserted after the ‘Note 1’ in the following manner:
Note 2: The continuation of the temporary post beyond the period for which these are created shall be reviewed by the Govt based on the factors of workload, stagnation etc. However, as long as an officer, after appointment in a particular grade against a post (permanent or temporary), remains in that grade in conformity with the service conditions, the post (permanent or temporary) against which the said officer is appointed shall not be declared as abolished.
Reason
(A) & (B): The creation of separate grade for Assistant commissioner appointed through temporary strength is a result of complete misunderstanding and misconception. The fact, that the same is completely anomalous and unjust, has already been elaborated in the ‘reasons’ given under the proposed amendment of sub-Rule 4(1) of the draft RRs circulated by the Board. So, there can be only single grade of Assistant Commissioner irrespective of the nature of post (temporary or permanent) and irrespective of nature of selection (Direct recruitment or promotion). So, the clause ‘Grade IX’, wherever it appears, needs to be omitted.
Now, the definition of the term ‘post’ under Rule 2(g) ibid, includes permanent as well as temporary post in all grades. Accordingly, the authorised strength (Number of Posts) of a particular grade should necessarily indicates and includes appointment in any post, temporary as well as permanent, under Indian Revenue Service (Customs and Central Excise) Group A Recruitment Rules. As there can be only one grade of Assistant Commissioner, the mentioning of both the permanent and the temporary post in the relevant column against the sl. No. 8 of the Schedule-I (meant for the grade Assistant Commissioner (junior time scale) in Grade VIII), therefore, is a necessity.
(C) The insertion of the ‘Note’ regarding continuation of temporary posts is in conformity with the amendment proposed in sub-Rule 4(3)(i) and the provision under sub-Rule 4(2). The detailed reason have already been incorporated along with the amendment proposed for sub-Rule 4(3)(i) of the RR.
14. Suggested Amendment for Schedule-III of RR
The following amendments shall be made in respect of Schedule III:
(A) Sl. No. 7 The entries in Col. (4) showing ‘Field of Selection, Grade and the minimum qualifying service for promotion’, shall be substitutedin the following manner :
‘Appointments in the grade of Deputy Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Senior Time Scale) (Grade VII) shall be made by promotion in accordance with sub-Rule 5(5)(i).’
(B) Sl. No. 8 (1) The entries in Col. (3) showing ‘Method of recruitment’ shall be substituted in the following manner:
(a) For Permanent strength
(i) Maximum 10% by Direct Recruitment
(ii) Minimum 90% by Promotion
(b) For Temporary strength
100% by Promotion
(2) In the entries in Col. (4) showing ‘Field of Selection, Grade and the minimum qualifying service for promotion’, for the words, ‘Fifty percent of the vacancies in Grade VIII (Junior Time Scale) shall be filled by promotion in accordance with Rule 5(3)(a)’, the following words shall be substituted :
‘Minimum Ninety percent of the vacancies in Grade VIII (Junior Time Scale) shall be filled by promotion in accordance with sub-Rule 5(3)(a)(i) and sub-Rule 5(4)’
(C) Sl. No. 9 To be deleted entirely.
Reason
(A) : For reasons as already appended to against sub-rule 5(5)(i) above.
(B) & (C): For reasons as already appended to against sub-Rule 5(2)(i), 5(3)(a)(i) and also for reasons appended to against the proposed amendment of Schedule-I above. As there can be only one grade of Assistant Commissioner, the mentioning of both the permanent and the temporary post in the relevant column against the sl. No. 8 of the Schedule-III (meant for the grade Assistant Commissioner (junior time scale) in Grade VIII), therefore, is a necessity and that the the sl. No. 9 showing a different grade of Assistant Commissioner has to be deleted.
15. Suggested Amendment for Schedule-IV of RR
The following amendments shall be made in respect of of Schedule-IV of RR:
(A) Sl. No. 8 The entries in column 3 showing ‘DPC/DSC for Non-Functional Selection Grade’ shall be substituted in the following manner.
(B) Sl. No. 9 To be deleted entirely.
Reason
For reasons as already appended to against Schedule-I and III above and also for the reason that for a single grade, the constitution of the DPC should be identical. The role of UPSC should be confined to direct recruitment of officers to Group-A at entry level grade. It should not be involved for promotion of officers to Group-A level. As there can be only one grade of Assistant Commissioner, the mentioning of both the permanent and the temporary post in the relevant column against the sl. No. 8 of the Schedule-IV (meant for the grade Assistant Commissioner (junior time scale) in Grade VIII), therefore, is a necessity and that the the sl. No. 9 showing a different grade of Assistant Commissioner has to be deleted.
