INDIAN REVENUE SERVICE (INDIRECT TAXES)
OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION.
Ref No.IRSITOA/2015/140 Dated:-26.10.15
To
The
Secretary,
Union
Public Service Commission,
Dholpur
House, Shahajan Road,
New
Delhi-110069
Respected
Sir,
Sub:
Revision in the Indian Revenue Service(C&CE) Gr-A Rules 2012-reg. ………………
Kindly refer to the UPSC’s letter
F.No. 3/8/17/2015-RR dated 23.09.15 addressed to the Central Board of Excise
and Customs on the above subject.
Most
alarmingly, we draw your kind attention and seek your immediate intervention in
the matter of the revision of IRS (C & CE) Gr.-A Rules 2012, which are not
only extremely anomalous and awfully deficient but have all the ingredients to
destroy the career of the most stagnated Executive Officers of CBEC, promoted
from the grade of Superintendents of Central Excise and Superintendent of
Customs (Preventive). The anomalies and deficiencies stem out of the following
issues:
50% of the
lowest rung of the IRS(C&CE) Services i.e. JTS posts are being filled up by
promotions amongst 3 feeder categories i.e. Superintendent of Central Excise,
Superintendent of Customs (Preventive) and Appraisers. While the
Superintendents of Central Excise, and Superintendents, Cus (Prev) are getting
just one promotion in their entire service span of about 35 to 40 years after
joining the service as Inspector of Central Excise/Preventive Officer of
Customs, other officers like Examiners of Customs (equivalent grade of
Inspector of Central excise and Preventive Officer of Customs), having been
selected through the same all India combined competitive examination on merit
and option basis conducted by the same selection body, i.e., Staff Selection
Commission and appointed in the same service of the same organisation in the
same Department under the same Ministry to the same level of post, are getting
4 to 5 promotions in the similar duration of service. More condemnable is the
fact that the Central Excise Inspectors and Preventive Officers of Customs
(irrespective of General, Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe) are compelled
to work under the Examiners of Customs even having lower merit or selected
through a later examination (even 20 years later) (Although promotions are made
as mere simple promotion and not on selection basis or selection post but to
the cadre posts at different levels in the same service). We have been fighting
for justice as per Rule of Law and Constitution of India for the last over
three decades with no tangible results so far due to the malafide acts of commissions & omissions by the
concerned officials. The right to live with dignity and respect has been
snatched from us.
The above-said severe and stark
discrimination has historical perspective. During the year 1978, Appraisers of
Customs (A. K. Chatterjee and others) filed a writ petition before
the Apex Court for the reason that some of their counterparts from Central
Excise (Superintendents of Central Excise) junior to them by one or one and
half years in the service have been promoted ahead of them. They wanted that
Recruitment Rules should be framed & promotions should be done on the
basis of length of service in the feeder cadre. As per the
directions of Apex Court, Govt. framed Indian Customs and Central
Excise (Group-A) Recruitment Rules in 1987 based on length of service in the
feeder cadre (i.e., to allow promotions to the post of Asstt. Commissioner
based on a common seniority list on the basis of length of service of the
officers belonging to three feeder categories). This was challenged by the then
office bearers of AIFCEGEO (now AIACEGEO) & AIFCEEO (now AICEIA) in the
hon’ble Supreme Court jointly under WP(C) No. 306/1988. While the matter
was pending in the hon’ble Supreme Court for decision, the CBEC made
a deceptive proposal dt. 08.10.1988 in total disregard of the facts by
distributing the posts within the Customs and Central Excise on the basis
of the number of Custom Service posts and Central Excise Service posts of
Asstt. Commissioner at group A entry level. Whereas the fact is that the Customs
Service Group ‘A’ and Central Excise Service Group ‘A’ were merged w.e.f.
15th August,
1959 into a single service of Customs and Central Excise Service Group
‘A’. The Apex Court vide WP No 306/1988 without any judicial
determination accepted the proposal of CBEC of 6:1:2 ratio for promotion to
Group-A to amend the Group-A RRs in 1998.
The Superintendents of Customs Preventive filed O.A. No. 489/1999
in Hon’ble CAT Mumbai Bench. The Hon’ble CAT directed in
July, 2001 to consider the grievances of the Superintendents of Customs.
Against this decision of Hon’ble CAT, the Appraisers of Customs filed Appeal
before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay. The Hon’ble Bombay
High Court decided
that Bombay CAT didn’t have any jurisdiction of passing the orders of
July, 2001. Superintendents of Customs filed an Appeal against the
orders of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India. While the matter was pending before
Hon’ble Apex Court WP(C) No. 385/2010 was also filed by AIACEGEO in the
Hon’ble Apex Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered the
following judgment on 03.08.11 by consensus in the Writ Petition
(Civil) No. 385 of 2010:-
“We
have heard learned
counsels for the parties in Civil Appeal No. 1198
of 2005 and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 385 of 2010.
It has been brought to our notice
that the Union of India in terms of our previous
order/directions dated 22nd November, 2010 and 06th December, 2010, has filed an affidavit
in Civil Appeal No. 1198 of 2005, inter alia, stating, that it
has initiated the process of reviewing the
Recruitment Rules, 1987 for promotion from Group 'B' posts to Group 'A'
posts. The entire scheme is being re-looked and worked out at the departmental
level in consultation with an expert body including the Department of Personnel
and the entire process is likely to be completed by 31st December, 2011.
In the aforesaid background, we deem
it proper and in the interest of all parties concerned to dispose of both the
Civil Appeal as also the Writ Petition without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the impugned judgment or the writ petition
but with the following directions:
1. All the 3 groups of
officers in the feeder categories, i.e., (i) Superintendents of Central Excise;
(ii) Superintendents of Customs (Preventive); and (iii) Customs
Appraisers, may make representations to the Union of India
suggesting the changes which according to them should be made
in the Recruitment Rules for their promotion to Group-A post of Assistant
Commissioner (Central Excise & Customs).
2. The Union of India
shall duly consider all such representations including those made before it in
light of the subsequent development in the cadre strength
of the 3 feeder categories of group-B
services and amend/revise the Recruitment Rules
including altering the existing ratio to secure just
and fair representation of all the 3 feeder categories.
3. Union of India
shall try to complete the entire process by 31st December, 2011, uninfluenced
by any observations made in the previous judgment of this Court in All India
Federation of Central Excise vs. Union of India &Ors. [(1997) 1 SCC 520],
in which the existing ratio was approved as also the
observations in the impugned judgment dated 19th December, 2003 of the
High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1324 of 2002 with regard to the
jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
4. Having
perused one of the Office Orders (No. 51/2011 dated 18th March, 2011), whereby
some officers were promoted from Group 'B' to the grade of Assistant
Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise in the
Pay Band 3 with Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- on purely ad hoc
basis, we direct that all such ad hoc promotions shall abide by the final
decision to be taken by the Department in terms of this order”.
As
per Hon’ble Apex court decision dt. 3.8.2011, CBEC
in its board meeting held on dt.16.9.2011
took the decision for preparation of
RRs by altering existing ratio for 3 feeder
cadres to 13:2:1 and also
decided to make regularization of all adhoc promotions pending since
97 in old ratio under the provisions of previous RRs. The
new RRs were notified on 13.9.2012. The prayer of CBEC for amendment
of Supreme Court order dated 03.08.11 seeking clarification to make
regularisation of all adhoc promotions pending since 1997 in old ratio was
rejected by Apex Court on 30.3.2012. In the old Recruitment Rules, the
ratio of 6:1:2 was fixed very unscientifically and the same was not fixed
considering the sanctioned strength of three feeder categories for which during
the period of 1987 to 2011 one of the feeder categories namely Appraiser took the undue benefit in getting early
promotion than the seniors of other two feeder categories. The Recruitment
Rules, therefore, are required to be framed to grant promotion on the basis of
common seniority list of feeder categories (taking the seniority of the base cadre into
account to counter disparity in promotion to the feeder cadres for want of
common seniority list in entry cadre) instead of any ratio system. The ratio system is also against
the DOPT guidelines because the number of promotional posts is too less. Further, the promotional prospects of Superintendents of
Central Excise were adversely affected due to the fixation of 6:1:2 ratio in
old Recruitment Rules giving undue benefit to one of the feeder categories
namely Appraisers of Customs. However, the said ratio has been revised to
13:2:1 but the ad hoc promotions have not been regularised based on the new
ratio, i.e., the rules existing on the date of regularisation. We
apprehend that this arbitrary regularization beyond the directives of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has not been brought to the notice of the UPSC while
forwarding the RR for approval. It is also pertinent to resubmit that no
ratio system for promotion to Group ‘A’ is mandated in our case as per DOPT
guidelines on account of the number of promotional posts being too less. As per DOPT Handbook on Recruitment Rules, the
Recruitment Rules (RRs) should be reviewed once in 5 years vide para
3.1.5 with a view to effecting such changes as are necessary to bring them in
conformity with the changed position including additions to or reductions in
the strength of the lower and higher level posts but CBEC never implemented
such instructions of DOPT. The Group-A RRs framed during 1987 were revised
during 2012 instead of every 5 years.
Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Radhey Shyam Singh
upheld that "Direct Recruitment" made on the basis of "Zonal
Examination" conducted by SSC is contrary to Fundamental Rights. Thereby,
it was struck down and the examination on all-India-basis started since 1996 as
per the directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court. In the year 1999, the then Director/Commissioner of DOPM
made a self speaking elaborate noting in the concerned file that it is unfair
& unjust and also unconstitutional to have separate cadres of (a) Inspector
of Central Excise (b) Preventive Officer of Customs &( c) Examiner of
Customs and also of (d)Superintendent of Central Excise (e) Superintendent of
Customs Preventive and ( f) Appraiser of Customs in the same service and should
be merged in one single cadre at each such level (just like Income Tax).
Subsequently after his transfer however, no efforts were made. (Although
efforts were shown to have been made without any tangible, legal and justified
results by the CBEC. Actually they were made with dilatory tactics, pre-planned
motives & conclusions.)
Present
hierarchy of executive Posts in CBEC is as follows:
Level (I) Group ‘B’ – Non Gazzetted
(i) Inspector (Central Excise).
(ii) Inspector (Preventive Officer of
Customs).
(iii) Inspector (Examiner of Customs).
All recruited through one and same process.
Level (II) Group ‘B’ Gazzetted
(i) Superintendent of Central Excise
(ii) Superintendent of Customs
(iii) Appraiser of Customs
Respective promotional post for the
Level (I) posts.
Level (III) Group ‘A’ entry JTS
Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Customs & Service Tax.
Single promotional post for all Level
(II) posts
(filled-up based on ratio formula
against DOPT provisions because number of promotional posts is too less).
Level (IV) Group ‘A’ STS
Deputy
Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax.
Time scale promotional post for Group
‘A’ Asstt. Commissioner.
Level (V) Group ‘A’
Joint Commissioner of Central Excise,
Customs & Service Tax.
Promotional post for Group ‘A’ Deputy
Commissioner.
Level (VI) Group ‘A’
Addl. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Customs & Service Tax.
Time scale promotional post for Group
‘A’ Joint Commissioner.
Level (VII) Group ‘A’
Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs
& Service Tax.
Promotional post for Group ‘A’ Addl.
Commissioner.
Level (VIII) Group ‘A’
Chief Commissioner of Central Excise,
Customs & Service Tax.
Promotional post for Group
‘A’ Commissioner.
Level (IX) Group ‘A’
Member of CBEC-Promotional post for
Group ‘A’ Chief Commissioner.
Level (X) Group ‘A’
Chairman of CBEC-Promotional post for
Member of CBEC.
Two more levels with new pay scales have been created before Level
(VIII) and Level (IX) for Group ‘A’ officers i.e. Principal Commissioner and
Principal Chief Commissioner respectively in the current cadre restructuring.
The CBEC vide office order No.202/2014
has regularized ad hoc promote officers against vacancy years 1997-98 to
2001-02(only 5-year block). It is pertinent to note that in year 2000, the CBEC
has regularized promotions of Gr-B to Gr-A for period up to 1996-97. The
promotions from 1997-98(Gr-B to Gr-A) have since been subjected to be ad hoc
and CBEC in the Board meeting held on 16.09.2011 decided to make regularization
of ad hoc promotions pending since 1997. But surprisingly, in the said
regularizations order No.202/2014, the ‘ad hoc’ promotes of 1995 have also been
regularized. The office order No.
202/2014 has considered for regularizations of the ‘retired’ officers promoted
from the grade of Supdt. Central Excise violating the DOPT instructions vide OM
No.22011/4/98-Estt(D) dated 12.10.1998, para 3. However, it has (correctly)
deleted names ‘retired’ officers in respect of Appraiser category officers with
an intention to favour the Appraisers. Further, the CBEC again has now
conspicuously maintained silence on the officers who are ad hoc promotees
in/within Gr-A service. These officers have not been confirmed up to vacancy
year 2001-02. There are more than 100-150 number of such ‘adhoc’ promotee Gr-A
officers who were promoted on adhoc basis prior to 1.4.2002, and have been
allowed to continue in & within Group-A grades. THIS IS AGAINST THE NODAL
MINISTRY GUIDELINES[para 18.4.3, Part-VI, F.No.22011/5/86-Estt(D) dated
1-.4.1989]. By adopting such detrimental policies, the officers of 2 feeder
cadre officers of Supdt Central Excise & Customs Preventive, are
consistently subjected to discrimination in their legitimate promotions to
Group-A. Therefore this order No. 202/2014 is required to be withdrawn.
The
rule of Law as envisaged in the Constitution of India is that any person lower
in rank & merit and selected through the same all India combined
competitive examination conducted on the basis of same qualification for the
same level posts and having been appointed in the same organisation/service can
never become superior to the other officer higher in rank & merit and selected through the same all India combined competitive
examination for same service in the same organisation. But the situation in the
CBEC is very astounding as the Inspectors of Central Excise of 1982 batch have
yet not been promoted to Group-A while the Preventive Officers of 1990 batch
and Examiners of 2002 batch have already
been promoted to Group-A. Also the Examiners of 1984 batch are at present
Additional Commissioners whereas the 1982 batch Inspectors of Central Excise
are still Superintendents. Thus by the wrong acts of the concerned authorities,
the Superintendents/Inspectors of Central Excise are forced to work under the junior
officers recruited as Examiners.
While 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) post 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., the Central Excise Superintendents are being promoted (if any)
merely to a Junior Time Scale (JTS) post with Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/- in PB-3.
The Superintendents of Central Excise (Group ‘B’ Gazetted post) 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 other departments.
Apart from the promotion directly to STS
post, the counterparts of Central Excise Superintendents are also given benefit
of seniority in group ‘A’ at many places in lieu of the service rendered by
them in group ‘B’. At many places like various services in Railways,
Administrative Services, Police Services, State Services etc., the group ‘B’
Gazetted officers are allowed the weightage of minimum of 4 years at the time
of entry into group ‘A’ thus giving them the due benefit of seniority in lieu
of the service rendered by them in the group ‘B’. For example, the officers of
Provincial Services in Southern States enter into IAS in a grade pay of Rs.
6600/- within 8 years with 4 years of seniority benefit while the Central
Excise Superintendents are unable to enter into IRS even in a lower grade pay
of Rs. 5400/ even after serving for 35-40 years. They enter (if any) into IRS
in a grade pay of Rs. 5400/- only and retire at same level without any
weightage for seniority in group ‘A’.
The rationale behind such a provision of weightage or direct promotion
to STS group ‘A’ is based on the fact of the promotee officers are having rich
job experience at the time of working as group ‘B’ officer as compared to
direct recruit group ‘A’ officers. But very unfortunately, the Central Excise
Superintendents are not being given the said benefit despite serving for the
longest period in group ‘B’ as compared to any other category of the group ‘B’
employees of the Govt. of India. They are not allowed the benefit of their rich
experience even despite the fact that Adjudication Orders also being prepared
by them for the Commissioner-level officers.
Before the enactment of Indian Customs & Central Excise Service
Group ‘A’ Rules, 1987, the Group ‘B’ Gazetted executive officers in CBEC were
allowed five increments in their group ‘A’ pay scale on promotion to group ‘A’
since senior time scale was not available at that point of time. It is also worth-mentioning that the common
entry counterparts of CSS are not only being promoted directly to a STS post
after Section Officer (analogous to Superintendent) but are also reaching the
level of Joint Secretary (GP-Rs. 10000/-). The position in CPWD is even more
interesting where an officer with a grade pay of Rs. 4600/- is directly being
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/- from a post with a grade pay of Rs.
6600/-. 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 merely a grade pay of Rs. 4200/-. The very purpose of framing the Human
Resource Management policy through RR’s has not been followed by the CBEC.
Article 309 of the Constitution of India has been violated on account of
failure to maintain equity, fairness and justice in
recruitment/placement/promotions and all service-related matters of Group ‘B’
Executive Cadres. Equality is the basic concept of Indian Constitution and,
hence, it is required to frame the Group Recruitment Rules to maintain parity
in promotions amongst the three base level Inspectors (i.e., Central Excise
Inspector, Preventive Officer and Examiner)
The Central Board of Excise forwarded a draft
Recruitment Rules for Gr-A services to UPSC through DOPT without considering
the grievance raised by our Association. The suggestions of our
Association with reference to such draft Recruitment Rules are enclosed here
with for your kind perusal.
Over the years, the Associations have made regular
submissions to the authorities suggesting various ways to dilute the rampant
stagnation of the Group-A Executive officers, promoted from the grade of
Superintendents of Central Excise and Superintendent of Customs (Preventive)
and to bring an end to their deprivation in comparison to their counterparts of
Appraisers/ Examiners through suitable provisions in the Group A Recruitment
Rules.
However, there is no indication so far on the part of the
CBEC authorities that the suggestions put forth by the Associations have been
considered at all, as neither the Associations have been given chance to
explain nor has any communication been sent to them.
The Association likes to draw your kind attention to the
fact that finalisation of the Group A recruitment Rule without considering the
representations of the affected Cadre Associations & without ensuring their
just and fair representation in the Group A, in comparison to their
counterparts of Appraisers/Examiners constitutes flagrant violation of
the directives of the Hon’ble Supreme Court issued in its Order dt 03.08.2011 in the Civil Appeal No. 1198 of
2005 & WP No.385/2010.
The UPSC vide
letter F. No. 3/8(17)/2015–RR Dt. 23.09.15 returned the RRs to Central Board of
Excise and Customs observing as follows-
“i) The provisions for 2118 temporary posts
at JTS level of IRS (C&CE) have been eliminated on the ground of
non-approval of the inclusion of these posts in IRS (C&CE) by the Cadre
Review Committee as well as Union Cabinet.
ii) Ad hoc promotions can be granted for a
period of one year only as per DOPT guidelines. It can’t be given for a period
of five years in one go.
iii) The department has already granted ad
hoc promotions to the JTS of IRS (C&CE) without bringing amendment in the
service rules.
iv) Above promotions might be difficult to be
withdrawn on expiry of stipulated five years and might adversely affect the
service conditions of the incumbents in Group ‘B’ feeder grades”.
It is pertaining to mention here that the provision of temporary posts
already exists in the RR since long as is evident from the definition of posts
which include both permanent and temporary posts. The Union Cabinet has
approved the creation of 2118 temporary posts at JTS level in IRS (C&CE) on
a long term basis for a period of 5 years in its meeting of 05.12.13. It also approved filling-up of these posts
100% by promotion from Group ‘B’ Gazetted Executive feeder grades, i.e.,
Superintendent of Central Excise, Superintendent of Customs (Preventive) and
Appraiser. The provisions for filling-up these temporary posts entirely by
promotion were approved by the Union
Cabinet to mitigate the acute stagnation in Group ‘B’ Gazetted Executive
grades. The said 2118 temporary posts were primarily approved to be created by
the Union Cabinet to meet statutory and
functional requirements of the Department. While proposing creation of 2118 temporary
posts at JTS level in IRS (C&CE) to the Union Cabinet, the Department
referred to the Para 4 (ii) of the Cadre Review Committee minutes indicating
that “the department will incorporate appropriate conditions in the extant
Recruitment Rules”. The Union Cabinet
approved the proposal for cadre restructuring contained in the Cabinet Note Dt.
27.11.13 vide Minutes of Cabinet Meeting Dt. 05.12.13 with the stipulation
that:
i) The method of
appointment is in conformity with the recommendations of the Cadre Review
Committee in respect of the proposals at paragraphs 9.2, 9.3 and 9.5 of the
note and
ii) The concurrence of
the DOPT is obtained for the relaxation, if any required.
Only after the aforesaid approval of DOPT, the
Department conducted the DPC to fill-up temporary JTS posts of IRS (C&CE)
entirely by promotion. Thus,
2118 Temporary posts at JTS level are very much part of IRS (C&CE) and the
method/ procedure for filling-up these posts entirely by promotion from Group
‘B’ Gazetted Executive feeder grades for next five years has to be necessarily
incorporated in the IRS (C&CE) Recruitment Rules in order to comply with
the decision of the Union Cabinet. Para 5.1.4 of the Cabinet Note provides
for one-time relaxation in the Recruitment Rules to enable filling-up of
temporary 2118 posts at JTS level for promotion from the Group B Gazetted
Executive grades. It also provides for repetition of the cycle for 5 years
against vacancies arising annually out of superannuation etc. of officers
promoted against these temporary posts. As per existing instructions vide DOPT
O.M. No. 28036/8/87-Estt.(D) Dt. 30.03.88 and No. 28036/1/2001-Estt.(D) Dt.
23.07.01 as reiterated in DOPT OM No. 28036/1/2012- Estt (D) Dt. 03.04.13, the
total period for which the appointment/promotion may be made on ad-hoc basis
keeping in view the exceptionalities anticipated in these OMs by the respective
Ministries/Departments is limited to one year. These instructions further
provide that in case of compulsions for extending any ad hoc
appointment/promotion beyond one year, the approval of DOPT is required.
In case of 2118 temporary posts at JTS level, the Department has obtained DOPT
approval for the same vide Dy. No. 1015966/JSE/2014. The CBEC has granted ad
hoc promotions to the Junior Time Scale of Indian Revenue Service (Customs
& Central Excise) in October, 2014 without bringing an amendment in the
Service Rules on the basis of the approval of the Union Cabinet to Para 9.4 of
the Cabinet Note Dt. 27.11.13 as well as DOPT concurrence conveyed vide Dy. No.
1015966/JSE/2014. Para 9.4 of the Cabinet Note reads:
“As a one-time measure,
permission for filling up the additional posts in Group ‘A’, ‘B’ & ‘C’ that
are to be filled by promotion on the basis of the guidelines on recruitment
rule as permitted for CBDT.”
Para 5.1.4 of the
Cabinet Note provides for one-time relaxation in the Recruitment Rules to
enable filling-up of temporary 2118 posts at JTS level for promotion from the
Group B Gazetted Executive grades. The continuation of these Temporary posts
shall depend upon the circumstances and functional requirements of the Department.
This shall have no adverse effect on the service conditions of the incumbents
in Group ‘B’ feeder grades because they are already retiring with only single
promotion in the career. These temporary posts will rather enable them to get 2ndpromotion
of the career. This is the only reason that the Cabinet has approved to take
the measures to remove their stagnation independent of cadre restructuring
too. It should not be forgotten that the
temporary posts have been created as per cabinet decision on a long term basis
for 5 years keeping in mind the functional requirement of the department. The
long term basis is also suggestive in all fairness that after 3 years the
existing provision of converting such posts into permanent ones shall also be
considered.
In view of
the observation of UPSC, the draft RRs has not yet been finalized. Therefore, it is requested that the Central Board of Excise and
Customs may kindly be directed to make necessary amendments in the RR’s
retrospectively for regularizations of all ad hoc promotions since 1997 and to
frame of new Gr-A RRs duly considering the suggestions in consonance with the
Hon’ble Apex Court decision dated 03.08.11 and the provisions of Article 309 of
the Constitution of India and the provisions of DOPT guidelines duly
withdrawing the regularization order No. 202/2014.
Thanking you,
Enclosed- as above.
Yours faithfully,
(A.K.SHARMA)
PRESIDENT.
Copy for kind
information and necessary action to the
(1) Secretary, Revenue, Govt. of India,
North Block, New Delhi.
2. Chairman, Central Board of Excise and Customs, North Block,
New Delhi.
ANNEXURE
Suggestions
by the IRS(Indirect Taxes) Officers’ Association to amend Indian Revenue Service (Customs and Central Excise) Group A
Recruitment Rules 2012 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 RR, 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 in
conformity with the service conditions, 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 Rule(RR) 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 Rules of RR 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 RR 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 RR.
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 RR
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 ‘ upto 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 or granting
'weightage' 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
(upto):90 (or more). 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 its
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); the DR are '659 (439+220)', 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 RR 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 be substituted 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 with reference to the length of continuous regular
service counted from the respective base level Executive grade of
Inspector/Preventive Officer/Examiner.”
Reasons
(A)
The disparity in promotional opportunity amongst the 3 feeder
streams of Supdt. Central Excise, Supdt.
Customs Preventive and Appraiser 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 seniority is a much better redress under the present dispensation.
The base cadre seniority at present is feasible proposition because of the
discontinuation of direct recruit Appraisers/Supdt Experts and, existence of
all India merit list in the examination for base cadre recruits.
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, RR should be framed accordingly to bring just, 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, 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)
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, is maintained
with reference to such eligibility list based on base cadre seniority. This can
be achieved either by giving the entire promotion vacancies available to the
feeder cadre/s, which is/are ahead of other feeder cadre/s by the yardstick of
base cadre seniority, at the time of promotion, to the other feeder cadre/s
which is/are lagging behind till such parity is reached, or otherwise.”
Reasons
The disparity once crept into amongst
equally placed cadres by way of resorting to inequitable promotion policy
cannot be wiped out merely by giving promotion on the basis of eligibility list based on base cadre
seniority. This can be achieved by way of allowing promotion to the cadre which
is lagging behind till the time parity is maintained with the cadre which are unjustly ahead of
other cadres with reference to the date of joining/position in the seniority
list by virtue of inequitable promotion policy.
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
ii)
Officers
who have completed 6 years of combined regular service in the Grade VIII and
feeder cadres of Grade VIII, taken together,
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). Accordingly, declaring
those officers as Deputy Commissioner of Customs and Central excise (Senior
Time Scale) in Grade VII who have already attained the pay scale and grade pay
assigned to such grade and/or have completed the combined qualifying service is
only logical and fair.
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.
(B)
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 cannot 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 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 be substituted 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 RR 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 substituted in 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)
Upto 10% by
Direct Recruitment
(ii)
90% or more 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 :
‘Ninety percent or more 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 sl. No. 9 showing a different grade of Assistant Commissioner has to
be deleted.
.
