GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS
(DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & TRAINING)
LOK SABHA
UNSTARRED QUESTION NO.
139
(TO BE ANSWERED ON 16.11.2016)
CREAMY LAYER
139. SHRI GANESH SINGH:
Will the PRIME MINISTER be pleased to state:
(a) whether the previous
Government had set aside the report of first creamy layer expert committee and
the Department of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions issued an official
memorandum No. 36033/5/2004- Est. (SCT) dated 14 October, 2004 clarifying the
creamy layer and which carries out two different meanings in its Hindi and
English versions and if so, the details thereof;
(b) whether the
Government has accepted the mistakes of the said memorandum and if so, the
action taken to cancel the said memorandum and the action taken against the
officials found responsible therefore;
(c) if not, the
reaction of the Government in this regard;
(d) whether the
Government has disqualified many candidates of the OBC for IAS and other
services despite qualifying the Civil Services Examination, 2015 as a result of
the said memorandum and if so, the details in this regard; and
(e) the number of
OBC candidates declared disqualified for IAS and other services on the basis of
this memorandum from 2004 till date?
ANSWER
Minister of State in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances
and Pensions and Minister of State in the Prime Minister’s Office. (DR.
JITENDRA SINGH)
(a) to (c): The
DOPT Office Memorandum (O.M.) No. 36033/5/2004-Estt(SCT) dated 14 October, 2004
is only a clarification explaining the provisions of DOPT O.M. No.
36012/22/93-Estt.(SCT) dated 8.9.1993. The O.M. of 8.9.1993 was issued by the
DOPT based on the recommendations of an Expert Committee constituted by the
then Ministry of Welfare.
The earlier unsigned
typed copy of the English version of the O.M. dated 14.10.2004, uploaded on the
website of this Department, had certain discrepancies in respect of Paragraph 9
vis-a vis its Hindi version uploaded on the Department’s website. It was,
therefore, felt necessary to rectify that discrepancy. Subsequently, the signed
version of the O.M. was traced and uploaded on the Department’s website and now
it is seen that there is no error in Paragraph 9 of the English version of the
O.M. dated 14.10.2004 vis-a vis the Hindi version.
(d) & (e): In
case of recommendation of name of a candidate by UPSC for service allocation,
the candidate is considered for allocation to one of those services by the
Government for which he has indicated his preference as per Civil Services
Examination Rules and extant instruction on the subject.
No comments:
Post a Comment