Scribd
Upload
26 views2 pages

BSNL Promotion Eligibility for Diploma Holders

The document discusses reasoning related to the eligibility of diploma holders for promotion to higher ranks within BSNL, an Indian telecommunications company. It notes that while diploma holders were previously eligible for promotion under 1994 rules, the 2009 rules mistakenly removed this provision. After representations, BSNL board amended the rules in 2010 to restore eligibility. No regular promotions occurred between 2000-2010. Limiting promotions now only to those vacancies would create anomalies and inequities given diploma holders had previously been promoted and received ad hoc promotions for years.

Uploaded by

Harsha Ammineni
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
26 views2 pages

BSNL Promotion Eligibility for Diploma Holders

The document discusses reasoning related to the eligibility of diploma holders for promotion to higher ranks within BSNL, an Indian telecommunications company. It notes that while diploma holders were previously eligible for promotion under 1994 rules, the 2009 rules mistakenly removed this provision. After representations, BSNL board amended the rules in 2010 to restore eligibility. No regular promotions occurred between 2000-2010. Limiting promotions now only to those vacancies would create anomalies and inequities given diploma holders had previously been promoted and received ad hoc promotions for years.

Uploaded by

Harsha Ammineni
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

REASONING:

The respondents submits that Diploma Holders who were holding the post of SDE(C) on
regular basis as on 1994 were all along eligible for promotion to the next higher rank and ad
hoc promotions were being given by the respondent Corporation. The RRs, 2009, however,
by mistake failed to retain the enabling Note available in RRs of 1994 but on representations
from individuals and Executive Association, the matter was considered by BSNL Board and
the missing Note was supplied on 02.07.2010. The Note reads as follows:-
However the existing incumbent holding the post of Sub Divisional Engineer or
equivalent on a regular basis on the date of notification of P & T BW (Group A) Service
Rules 1994 i.e. 06.08.1994 shall continue to be eligible for promotion to the post of
Executive Engineer or equivalent STS level post in BSNL, if they possess a Diploma in
Engineering in their respective branch from a recognized University/Institution or equivalent.
No regular promotion was made by the respondent organization during the entire
period of its existence and even after Notification of RRs of 2009. It is only after the matter
reached finality after issue of the amendment on 02.07.2010 that the issue of promotion was
taken up. In this connection, learned counsel places reliance on the order dated 26.08.2011 of
the Co-ordinate Bench in OA-542/2010. The observations of this Tribunal read as under:- It
is only by way of an exception or a concession the Respondent BSNL has retained the same
provision in schedule 1B of BSNL MSRR-2009 by way of amendment made vide Order
dated 2.7.2010. By the said Order dated 2.7.2010, they were only honouring the similar
commitment made in 1994 Recruitment Rules.
Therefore, the law is settled that even candidates selected for appointment have no
right to appointment and it is open to the State Government at a subsequent date not to fill up
the posts or to resort to fresh selection and appointment on revised criteria. In the present
case, the selection was yet to be made by the HPSC. Therefore, the petitioners cannot even
claim that they were selected for appointment by the HPSC. The selection process had not
been completed and before it could be completed the State Government reviewed its earlier
decision and decided to revise the eligibility criteria for appointment. It is, therefore, clear
from the settled legal position that the petitioners had no right to claim that the selection
process once started must be completed and the Government cannot refuse to make
appointments of candidates duly selected by the HPSC.
From the narration of the background of the case, it is clear that no steps for regular
promotion had been taken by the respondent organization prior to the issue of the amended
Rules 2010. After examining the whole issue, considering the representations received the
Board rectified the position and brought in the missing Note in the amendment of 02.07.2010.
The promotions to the existing vacancies on regular basis are now being considered. It would
create an anomalous situation if we accepted the contention of the applicants and limited the
promotion to the vacancies arising between 2000 to 2010 only to the Degree Holders. Not
only that it would create an invidious situation in view of the fact that similar officers earlier
had the benefit of the aforesaid Note for regular promotion during the time the employees
were under the control of Government, particularly for those who had ad hoc promotion all
these years till 14.07.2009 when the RRs of BSNL were notified and now would be facing
the prospect of losing their seniority when their regular promotion is to be considered.
Therefore, from equity considerations also we

You might also like