The Chairman 16/11/2012
Head Office, Mumbai
Policy for Recruitment & Selection to Higher Grades-Request for urgent discussion
Please refer to HRMD Circular No. 267 / HRMD PA-03/2012 dated 09/11/2012 on the captioned subject. In this connection, the following is brought to your kind notice-
1. The policy has created wide spread resentment in all grades of officers as it is perceived to have been formulated primarily to make as many more officers ineligible for inclusion in the promotion process as possible. Management of any organization requires providing equitable opportunities to all its employees for a motivating and aspiring career progression instead of putting in place a policy having a denial orientation. You will agree that your good-self as also all other top executives of NABARD who have reached the top most levels as per the laid down criterion of older promotion policy, which devolved on the principles of Seniority cum Merit and as per the constituent of the RBI’s promotion policy have served the organization well. AINBOA was made to understand that a refinement, that too as per the RBIs’ existing policy is required, but finally a draconian policy, devoid of equitable and non-discriminatory components have been put in place. We also apprehend that it is a prelude to deny us parity with RBI in our pay & allowances as also other service conditions.
2. Furthermore, the policy is neither suited to the structure, functions and work force of NABARD nor on the lines of RBI, which the CGM, HRMD sought to discuss with AINBOA on 29.10.2012. It encompasses the harshest and arbitrary conditions for selection which is neither prevailing in the Banking Industry including RBI, nor in Public Sector Undertakings, nor in Govt of India services or even in Private Sector.
3. We are also perturbed to observe that while discussing the parameters of the said policy on 29/10 & 30/10/2012 the CGM (HRMD) has kept the AINBOA in dark as he never referred to many of the aspects which have found place in the new policy. Examples of such instances are Merger of Services, doing away with the seniority and experience (Seniority-cum-Merit) aspect for selection of officers to higher grades, introducing arbitrary criterion for making officers ineligible for selection to higher grades eg. Cut-off marks in PAR, Interviews and Written Tests as also three spells of leaves and cooling period etc. etc.
4. The selection Policy is also not at all in conformity with the provisions of NABARD Staff rules, 1981 as also the NABARD Act, 1981 and are also not tenable under the tenets of natural Justice as a new policy cannot have specifics from retrospective dates-as is the case in so far as PAR cut-offs, leave record, disbanding of PAR marks, span of PAR recordings are concerned. Similarly, a deserving and meritorious officer cannot be denied a well deserved promotion merely on the basis of his/her age profile.
5. The minimum bench mark/cut-off criterion, especially at the level of interviews, which are highly subjective and individual oriented tool, will lead to unintentional and at times even intentional discriminations and victimizations.
6. The Recruitment & Selection policy has also incorporated many a deviations from the laid down criterion on the subject matter as issued by DoP&T, GoI, New Delhi as also many contradictions in itself.
7. As per our assessment, the policy will make nearly 1000 officers ineligible in various grades for being considered under the promotion process and the number shall increase with each passing year. You will surely appreciate that with a team of 1000 highly de-motivated officers constituting more than 30% of the total officers’ strength, the ultimate sufferer will be our esteemed organisation, NABARD. It is, therefore, essential in the interest of the institution as also the officer work force that the promotion policy be reviewed with an open mind.
8. Many of the Officers, mainly of 1984 & 1988 batches, who have been made to wait for even getting an opportunity to appear for promotional exercise for a decade odd will now find themselves at the receiving end due to changed rules of the games, that too from a retrospective dates. More so, in an organization like ours where the tangible and quantifiable parameters for recording of PAR and that too in absence of any laid down and outlined job profiles in respective grades of officers, isn’t it an irony that even those officers who have been rated as under A+ category will not be eligible even to appear for the selection process? More-so even the reporting officer didn’t had any inklings that their subordinate officers to whom he/she is providing an A+ rating will be considered as a pariah just because some magical figure of 86 has not been accorded…
9. We, therefore, with reference to the para 15 of the circular under reference urge upon you to immediately initiate a dialogue with AINBOA on the issue and resolve the issues of concern so that a divisive, de-motivating and denial oriented policy is not put in place in our august organisation.
10. Your intervention to address all our concern on this matter of great concern shall pave the way for a smooth and conducive Industrial harmony in our organisation.
(Dr D S Chauhan)
CC CGM HRMD, NABARD, HO Mumbai