4.2 Interviews
in promotions
No interviews should be held unless it has been specifically
provided for in the recruitment rules for the post/service. Whenever promotions
are to be made by the method of 'Selection' by DPC and the administrative
Ministry desires that an interview should form part of the selection process,
necessary provision should be made in the recruitment rules. However,
interviews in junior level posts upto Group ‘B’ (Non-Gazetted) in the
Government have been discontinued irrespective of mode of appointment i.e. promotion,
deputation, direct recruitment etc.
[O.M. No. 39020/01/2013-Estt.(B) dated 09.10.2015]
SELECTION METHOD
4.3 Zone
of Consideration for promotion by Selection
For
promotion by Selection method, the size of zone of consideration would be as
under :-
|
No.
of vacancies
|
No.
of officers to be considered
|
Extended
Zone of consideration for SC/ST
|
|
1
|
5
|
5
|
|
2
|
8
|
10
|
|
3
|
10
|
15
|
|
4
|
12
|
20
|
|
5 to 10
|
Twice the number of vacancies + 4
|
5 times the number of vacancies
|
|
Exceeding
10
|
One & half times the number
of vacancies (rounded off to next higher integer) + 3 but not less
than the size of zone of consideration for 10 vacancies.
|
5
times the number of vacancies
|
[Para 3 of O.M. No.
22011/2/2002-Estt(D) dated 06.01.2006]
4.3.1 If
adequate number of SC/ST candidates are not available within the normal field
of choice as above to fill up the vacancies reserved for them, the field of
choice shall be extended to five times the total number of vacancies and the
SC/ST candidates (and not any other) coming within the extended field of choice
be considered against the vacancies reserved for them.
[Para 1 of O.M. No.
22011/1/90-Estt(D) dated 12.10.1990]
4.3.2 Where there are a
number of feeder grades with a fixed quota, the zone of consideration will be
applicable separately with reference to the number of posts going to the quota
of a particular feeder grade. Where
no fixed quota is prescribed, a common eligibility list shall be prepared
limited to the zone of consideration as above.
[Paras 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 of O.M.
No. .20011/1/2008-Estt.(D) dated 11.11.2010]
4.4 Guidelines
for conducting the proceedings of the DPCs
4.4.1 Each
Departmental Promotion Committee should decide its own method and procedure for
objective assessment of the suitability of the candidates.
[Para 5 of O.M.
NO. 22011/5/86-Estt.(D) dated 10.04.1989]
4.4.2 DPCs enjoy full
discretion to devise their own methods and procedures for objective assessment
of the suitability of candidates who are to be considered by them. In order to ensure
greater selectivity in matters of promotions and for having uniform procedures
for assessment by DPCs, the following guidelines are laid down to regulate the
assessment of suitability of candidates by DPCs.
4.4.3 While merit has to be recognized and rewarded,
advancement in an officer’s career would not be regarded as a matter of course,
but should be earned by dint of hard work, and good conduct and result oriented
performance as reflected in the Annual Performance Appraisal Reports and based
on strict and rigorous selection process.
[Paras 6.1.2 to 6.1.3 of O.M. No.
22011/5/86-Estt.(D) dated 10.04.1989]
4.4.4 Consideration
of Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APARs)
Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APARs) are the basic
inputs on the basis of which assessment is to be made by each DPC. The evaluation of APARs should be
fair, just and non-discriminatory.
(a) The DPC should consider APARs for equal number of years in
respect of all officers considered for promotion subject to (c) below.
(b) The DPC should assess the suitability of the officers for
promotion on the basis of their service record and with particular reference to
the APARs for five years preceding T-2nd year as reckoning APARs. It is also clarified
that if more than one APAR have been written for a particular year, all the
APARs for the relevant years shall be considered together as the APAR for one
year.
(c) Where one
or more APARs have not been written for any reason during the relevant period,
the DPC should consider the APARs of the years preceding the period in question
and if in any case even these are not available the DPC should take the APARs
of the lower grade into account to complete the number of APARs required to be
considered as per (b) above. If this is also not possible, all the available
APARs should be taken into account.
(d) Where an
officer is officiating in the next higher grade and has earned APARs in that
grade, his APARs in that grade may be considered by the DPC in order to assess
his work, conduct and performance, but no extra weightage may be given merely
on the ground that he has been officiating in the higher grade.
(e) The DPC should not be
guided merely by the overall grading, if any, that may be recorded in the APARs
but should make its own assessment on the basis of the entries in the APARs,
because it has been noticed that sometimes the overall grading in a APAR may be
inconsistent with the grading under various parameters or attributes.
[Paras 6.2.1 (a) to (e) of O.M.
No. 22011/5/86-Estt.(D) dated 10.04.1989 and
O.M. No. 22011/4/2013-Estt.(D)
dated 08.05.2017]
(f) Government also desires to clear the misconception about
“Average” performance. While
“Average” may not be taken as adverse remark in respect of an officer, at the
same time, it cannot be regarded as complimentary to the officer, as ‘Average’
performance should be regarded as routine and undistinguished. It is only performance that
is above average and performance that is really noteworthy, which should
entitle an officer to recognition and suitable rewards in the matter of
promotion.
[Para 6.1.3 of
O.M. No. 22011/5/86-Estt.(D) dated 10.04.1989]
(g) If the
Reviewing authority or the Accepting authority as the case may be has
over-ruled the Reporting Officer or the Reviewing authority as the case may be,
the remarks of the latter authority should be taken as the final remarks for
the purposes of assessment, provided it is apparent from the relevant entries
that the higher authority has come to a different assessment consciously after
due application of mind. If
the remarks of the Reporting Officer, Reviewing authority and Accepting
authority are complementary to each other and one does not have the effect of
over-ruling the other, then the remarks should be read together and the final
assessment made by the DPC.
[Para 6.2.1 (f)
of O.M. No. 22011/5/86-Estt.(D) dated 10.04.1989]
(h) In cases where the assessment by DPCs are apparently not in
line with the grades in the APARs, the DPC should appropriately substantiate
its assessment by giving reasons, so that the appointing authority could factor
these while taking a view on the suitability of officer for promotion.
[O.M. No. 22011/3/2007-Estt.(D)
dated 18.02.2008]
(i) The
DPC need not assess and grade all the officers in the eligibility list.
Assessment of suitability of eligible employees in the zone of consideration
(in the descending order of seniority in the feeder grade) for inclusion in the
panel for promotion may be considered only upto a number, which is considered
sufficient for preparing the normal panel with reference to the number of
vacancies as also for preparing the extended panel for promotion in terms of
Department of Personnel and Training Office Memorandum No. 22011/18/87-Estt-(D)
dated 09.04.1996. In
respect of the remaining employees in the zone of consideration, as now
prescribed, the DPC may put
a note in the minutes that the assessment of the remaining employees in the
zone of consideration is not
considered necessary, as sufficient number of employees with prescribed
benchmark have become available.
[O.M. No. 22011/2/2002-Estt.(D) dated 06.01.2006]
4.4.5 Overall
Assessment by DPC
(a)
In the case of each
officer an overall grading should be given. The grading shall be one among the
gradings prescribed in the APAR.
(b)
Before making the overall grading after considering the APARs for the relevant
years, the DPC is also required to take into account whether the officer has
been awarded any major or minor penalty or whether any displeasure of any superior
officer or authority has been conveyed to him, as reflected in the APARs.
[Para 6.2.2 and 6.2.3 of O.M.
No. NO. 22011/5/86-Estt.(D)
dated 10.04.1989]
(b) In assessing the suitability of the officer on
whom a penalty has been imposed, the
DPC will take into account the circumstances leading to the imposition of the
penalty and decide whether in the light of the general service record of the
officer and the fact of the imposition of the penalty, the officer should be
considered for promotion. The DPC, after due consideration,
has the authority to assess the officer as ‘unfit’ for promotion. However, where the DPC
considers that despite the penalty, the officer is suitable for promotion, the
officer will be actually promoted only after the currency of the penalty is
over.
[Para 7(g) of O.M. No.
22011/4/2007-Estt.(D) dated 28.04.2014]
4.4.6 Preparation
of panel
The list of candidates considered by the DPCs and the overall
assessment of each candidate would form the basis for preparation of the panel
for promotion by the DPC. The
following principles should be observed in the preparation of the panel :
(a) There should be no supersession in matter of
selection (merit) promotion at any level. In
the case of ‘selection’ (merit) promotion, the distinction in the nomenclature
(‘selection by merit’ and ‘selection-cum-seniority’) has been dispensed with
and the mode of promotion in all cases shall be ‘selection’ only. The element of selectivity
(higher or lower) shall be determined with reference to the relevant benchmark
(‘Very Good’ or ‘Good’) prescribed for promotion.
(b) Bench-mark
Having regard to the
levels of the posts to which promotions are to be made, the nature and
importance of duties attached to the posts, bench mark grades have been
prescribed for each category of posts for which promotions are to be made by
selection method.
(i) Promotion to the revised pay scale of post in Pay Level
-12 and above :
The mode of promotion shall be ‘selection’. The benchmark for promotion
shall continue to be ‘very good’. This will ensure element of higher
selectivity in comparison to selection promotions to the grades lower than the
aforesaid level where the benchmark, as indicated in the following paragraphs,
shall be ‘good’ only. The
DPC shall, for promotions to the said pay level and above, grade officers as
‘fit’ or ‘unfit’ with reference to the benchmark of ‘very good’ and overall
assessment. Only those
who are graded as ‘fit’ shall be included in the select panel prepared by the
DPC in order of their inter-se seniority in the feeder grade. There shall be no
supersession in promotion among those who are found ’fit ‘by the DPC in terms
of the aforesaid prescribed benchmark of ‘very good’.
[O.M. No. 35034/7/97-Estt.(D) dated 08.02.2002]
In order to ensure greater selectivity at higher level of
administration, the DPC may ensure that for the promotion to Level 14 and
above, the prescribed benchmark of 'Very Good' is invariably met in all APARs
of five years under consideration.
[O.M. No. 22011/2/2007-Estt.(D)
dated 18.02.2008]
(ii) Promotion
to grades below the revised pay-scale of post in Pay Level 12 (including
promotions from lower Groups to Group ‘A’ posts/grades/services)
The mode of promotion shall be ‘selection’. The bench-mark for
promotion, shall continue to be ‘Good’. The
DPC shall for promotion to posts/grades/services in the aforesaid categories,
grade officers as ‘fit’ or ‘unfit’ only with reference to the benchmark of
‘Good’. Only those who are graded as ‘fit’ shall be included in the select
panel prepared by the DPC in order of their inter-se seniority in the feeder
grade. There shall be no supersession in promotion among those who are found
’fit ‘ by the DPC in terms of the aforesaid prescribed benchmark of ‘Good’.
[O.M. No. 35034/7/97-Estt.(D) dated 08.02.2002]
(c) Appointments from the panel shall be made in the
order of names appearing in the panel for promotion.
(d) Where sufficient number of officers with the
required benchmark grade are not available within the zone of consideration,
officers with the required bench mark will be placed on the panel and for the
unfilled vacancies, the appointing authority should hold a fresh DPC by
considering the required number of officers beyond the original zone of
consideration.
4.4.7 Consideration
of SC/ST Officers
(a) In promotion to posts/services in all Groups
upto the lowest rung in Group ‘A’, selection against vacancies reserved for SCs
and STs will be made only from those SC/ST officers, who are within normal zone
of consideration. Where
adequate number of SC/ST candidates is not available within the normal zone of
consideration, it shall be extended to five times the total number of vacancies
for which select panel is to be prepared and the SC/ST candidates coming within
the extended field of choice should also be considered against the vacancies
reserved for them. If candidates from SC/ST obtain on the basis of merit
(normal bench mark score applicable for the grade) with due regard to
seniority, on the same basis as others, lesser number of vacancies than the
number reserved for them, the difference should be made up by selecting
candidates of these communities, who are in the zone of consideration/extended
zone of consideration, irrespective of merit and ‘bench mark’ but who are considered
fit for promotion.
[Para 6.3.2(ii) and (iii) of O.M. No. 22011/5/86-Estt.(D)
dated 10.04.1989]
(b) In promotions by Selection to posts within Group
‘A’ (Class-I) carrying Grade Pay of Rs. 8700/- (Pay Level-13) or less, the
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Officers, who are senior enough in the zone
of consideration for promotions, so as to be within the number of vacancies for
which the select list has been drawn up, would be included in that list,
provided they are not considered unfit for promotion.
[O.M. No. 36028/8/2009-Estt.(Res) dated 07.06.2013]
4.4.8 Preparation of Year wise panels by DPC
where they have not met for a number of years
Where for reasons beyond control, the DPC could not be held in a
year (s), even though the vacancies arose during that year (or years), the
first DPC that meets thereafter should follow the following procedures :-
(i) Determine the actual number of regular vacancies
that arose in each of the previous year (s) immediately preceding and the,
actual number of regular vacancies proposed to be filled in the current year
separately.
(ii) Consider in respect of each of the years those
officers only who would be within the field choice with reference to the
vacancies of each year starting with the earliest year onwards.
(iii) Prepare a ‘Select List’ by placing the select
list of the earlier year above the one for the next year and so on.
[Para 6.4.1 of
O.M. No. 22011/5/86-Estt.(D) dated 10.04.1989]
(iv) With respect to point (ii) above, it is
clarified that it is necessary to include those persons who were in position
during the relevant vacancy year but have retired before holding the DPC. This is considered imperative
to identify the correct zone of consideration for the relevant year(s). Such retired officials would,
however, have no right for actual promotion. The
DPC(s) may, if need be, prepare extended panel(s) as per principles prescribed
in O.M. dated April, 9, 1996.
[O.M. No. 22011/4/98-Estt.(D)
dated 12.10.1998 and
O.M. No. 22011/1/2014-Estt.(D)
dated 14.11.2014]
4.4.9 Cases
of occurrence of additional vacancies in a year
Where a DPC has already been held in a year and further
vacancies arise during the same year due to death, resignation, voluntary
retirement etc. or because the vacancies were not intimated to the DPC due to
error or omission on the part of the Department concerned, the following
procedure should be followed :
(i) Vacancies due to death, voluntary retirement,
new creations, etc., clearly belong to the category, which could not be
foreseen at the time of placing facts and material before the DPC. In such cases, another meeting of
the DPC should be held for drawing up a panel for these vacancies as these
vacancies could not be anticipated at the time of holding the earlier DPC. If, for any
reason, the DPC cannot meet for the second time, the procedure of drawing up of
year wise panels may be followed when it meets next for preparing panels in
respect of vacancies that arise in subsequent year(s).
(a) With regard to the zone of consideration, the
eligibility list for the supplementary DPC and whether officers who are
included in the panel by the original DPC or in the extended panel but could
not be promoted as these anticipated vacancies do not actually become available
could be appointed against the additional vacancies later becoming available
for the same vacancy year. These
issues have been examined in consultation with UPSC and the following is
decided.
(b) The
zone of consideration, in case of holding supplementary DPC, shall be fixed as
indicated in para 4.3 keeping in view total number of vacancies arising in a
particular vacancy year i.e. vacancies accounted in Original DPC + additional
vacancies becoming available subsequently during the same year.
(c) The eligibility list for supplementary DPC shall
be prepared by removing the names of all such officers who have already been
assessed by earlier DPC as fit, unfit or placed in the sealed cover by the
original DPC before placing the same for consideration by the supplementary DPC.
(d) The
officers who have already been empanelled or placed in the extended panel but
could not be promoted due to these vacancies not actually becoming available;
need not be re-assessed by the supplementary DPC as the assessment matrix
remains the same. They may be appointed against the additional vacancies of the
same vacancy year as per recommendations of the earlier DPC. In such situation
the number of vacancies for supplementary DPC shall be accordingly adjusted.
(e) While calculating the regular vacancies for a
DPC, it is incumbent upon administrative department to ensure that there is no
arbitrariness in calculation of anticipated vacancies
[O.M. No. 6.4.2(i) of O.M. No.
22011/5/86-Estt.(D) dated 10.04.1989 and
O.M. No. 22011/2/2014-Estt.(D)
dated 30.01.2015]
(ii) The second type of cases of non-reporting of
vacancies due to error or omission (i.e. though the vacancies were there at the
time of holding of DPC meeting but they were not reported to it) results in
injustice to the officers concerned by artificially restricting the zone of
consideration. The wrong
done cannot be rectified by holding a second DPC or preparing a year wise
panel. In all such cases, a review DPC should be held keeping in mind the total
vacancies of the year.
[O.M. No. 6.4.2(ii) of O.M. No.
22011/5/86-Estt.(D) dated 10.04.1989]
(iii) For the purpose of evaluating the merit of the
officers while preparing year-wise panels, the scrutiny of the record of
service of the officers should be limited to the records that would have been
available had the DPC met at the appropriate time. However, if on the date of the meeting of the
DPC, departmental proceedings are in progress and under the existing
instructions sealed cover procedure is to be followed, such procedure should be
observed even if departmental proceedings were not in existence in the year to
which the vacancy related. The officer's name should be kept in the sealed
cover till the proceedings are finalised.
[O.M. No. 6.4.3 of O.M. No. 22011/5/86-Estt.(D) dated
10.04.1989]
(iv) While promotions will be made in the order of
the consolidated select list, such promotions will have only prospective effect
even in cases where the vacancies relate to earlier year(s).
[O.M. No. 6.4.4 of O.M. No. 22011/5/86-Estt.(D) dated
10.04.1989]
4.4.10 Extended panel
Normally the number of persons recommended in the panel should
be equal to the number of vacancies reported. However,
the DPCs may recommend an extended panel only in following 3 situations and not
for filling up vacancies which have arisen subsequent to the DPC or during
currency of panel :
(a) when persons included in the panel are already
on deputation or whose orders of deputation have been issued and will be
proceeding on deputation shortly for more than a year; or
(b) when persons included in the panel have refused
promotion on earlier occasions and are under debarment for promotions; or
(c) when officers included in the panel are retiring
within the same year provided there is no change
in the zone of consideration by the expected date of their retirement.
While giving the extended panel, the DPC should stipulate a
condition against the additional names to the effect that they will be promoted
only in the event of the officers in regular panel not being available for
promotion /appointment for the reasons given by the Ministry/Department.
[O.M. No. 22011/18/87-Estt.(D)
dated 09.04.1996]
5. NON-SELECTION METHOD
Where the promotions are to be made on ‘non- selection’ basis
according to Recruitment Rules, the DPC need not make a comparative assessment
of the records of officers and it should categories the officers as ‘fit’ or
‘not yet fit’ for promotion on the basis of assessment of their record of
service. While considering an officer ‘fit’, guidelines in para 6.1.4 of the
O.M. No. 22011/5/86-Estt.(D) dated 10.04.1989 (as mentioned in sub-para
4.4.4(f) of this compilation) should be borne in mind. The officers categorised
as ‘fit’ should be included in the panel in the order of their seniority made
from which promotions are to be made.
[Para 7 of O.M. No.
22011/5/86-Estt.(D) dated 10.04.1989]
6. Confirmation
In the case of confirmation, the DCC should not determine the
relative merit of officers but it should assess the officers as ‘Fit’ or ‘Not
yet fit’ for confirmation in their turn on the basis of their performance in
the post as assessed with reference to their record of service (Performance
Appraisal Reports for the period of probation/extended period of probation).
[Para 8 of O.M. No.
22011/5/86-Estt.(D) dated 10.04.1989]
7. Probation
In the case of probation, the DCC should not determine the
relative grading of officers but only decide whether they should be declared to
have completed the probation satisfactorily. If
the performance of any probationer is not satisfactory, the DPC may advise
whether the period of probation should be extended or whether he should be
discharged from service.
[Para 9 of O.M. No.
22011/5/86-Estt.(D) dated 10.04.1989]
8. Procedure
to be followed by the DPC in respect of Government servants under cloud
At the time of consideration of the cases of Government servants
for promotion, details of Government servants in the consideration zone for
promotion falling under the following categories should be specifically brought
to the notice of the Departmental Promotion Committee: -
(i) Government servants under suspension;
(ii) Government servants in respect of whom a charge
sheet has been issued and the disciplinary proceedings are pending; and
(iii) Government servants in respect of whom
prosecution for a criminal charge is pending.
For the purpose of pendency of prosecution for a criminal
charge, the definition of pendency of judicial proceedings in criminal cases
given in Rule 9 (6)(b)(i) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 [Now Explanation 1(b)((i) under Rule 8
of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021] is adopted. The Rule 9 (6)(b)(i) of
CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 [Now Explanation 1(b)(i) under Rule 8 of
CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021] provides as under:-
"(b) judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted
– (i) in the case of criminal proceedings, on the date on which the complaint
or report of a Police Officer, of which the Magistrate takes cognizance, is
made"
[Para 2 of O.M. No.
22011/4/91-Estt.(A) dated 14.09.1992; and
Para 8 of O.M. No.
22034/4/2012-Estt.(D) dated 02.11.2012]
(For detailed procedure
and other related aspects relating to those covered by any of the above three
conditions, the Information Document on ‘Sealed
Cover Procedure’,
already available on the website of this Department may be referred)
9. Adverse remarks in APAR
9.1 Before
placing the APARs for the reckonable period for consideration of the DPC, it
should be ensured that all the relevant APARs have been disclosed to the
officers concerned and the representations received, if any, against adverse
remarks or below Benchmark Gradings, have also been disposed of in terms of OM
No. 21011/1/2005-Estt.(A)(Pt-II) dated 14.05.2009, OM No. 21011/1/2010-Estt.(A)
dated 13.04.2010 and OM No. 43012/1/2015-Estt.(A-II) dated 21.04.2020.
[OM No.
21011/1/2005-Estt.(A)(Pt-II) dated 14.05.2009,
OM No. 21011/1/2010-Estt.(A)
dated 13.04.2010 and
OM No. 43012/1/2015-Estt.(A-II)
dated 21.04.2020]
9.2 DPCs
are required to determine the merits of those being considered for promotion
with reference to the prescribed bench-mark, by making its own assessment, on
the basis of the entries and gradings contained in the APARs and other relevant
material facts placed before it, and accordingly grade the officers as 'fit' or
'unfit'. Relevant material would inter alia include the orders of the competent
authority on the representation of the Government servant on the entries/
grading in APAR. In the event of the DPC deciding not to take cognisance of
such an order, on the ground that the same is not a speaking order, the DPC
shall make its assessment based on the entries in APAR and other material
including the representation of the Government servant. The DPCs should
substantiate its assessment by giving justifiable and sustainable reasons
including the cases where the assessment of the DPC is different from the
grading in APAR (original or amended after representation by the Government
servant).
[O.M. No. 22011/5/2013-Estt(D)
dated 09.05.2014]
10. Treatment
of Effect of penalties on promotion – Role of DPC
It is a settled position that the DPC, within its power to make
its own assessment, has to assess every proposal for promotion, on case to case
basis. In assessing the suitability, the DPC is to take into account the
circumstances leading to the imposition of the penalty and decide, whether in
the light of general service record of the officer and the effect of imposition
of penalty, he/ she should be considered suitable for promotion and therefore,
downgradation of APARs by one level in all such cases may not be legally
sustainable. Following broad guidelines are laid down in respect of DPC :
(a) DPCs enjoy full
discretion to devise their own methods and procedures for objective assessment
of the suitability of candidates who are to be considered by them, including
those officers on whom penalty has been imposed.
(b) The DPC should not be
guided merely by the overall grading, if any, that may be recorded in the
ACRs/APARs but should make its own assessment on the basis of the entries in
the ACRs/APARs as it has been noticed that sometimes the overall grading in a
ACR/APAR may be inconsistent with the grading under various parameters or
attributes. Before making the overall recommendation after considering the
APARs (earlier ACRs) for the relevant years, the DPC should take into account
whether the officer has been awarded any major or minor penalty.
(c) In case, the
disciplinary/criminal prosecution is in the preliminary stage and the officer
is not yet covered under any of the three conditions as under, the DPC will
assess the suitability of the officer and if found fit, the officer will be
promoted along with other officers :
(i) Government
servants under suspension;
(ii) Government servants in respect of whom a charge
sheet has been issued and the disciplinary proceedings are pending; and
(iii) Government servants in respect of whom
prosecution for a criminal charge is pending;
The onus to ensure that
only person with unblemished records are considered for promotion and
disciplinary proceedings, if any, against any person coming in the zone of
consideration are expedited, is that of the administrative Ministry/Department.
(d) If the official under
consideration is covered under any of the three condition mentioned in (c)
above, the DPC will assess the suitability of Government servant along with
other eligible candidates without taking into consideration the disciplinary case/criminal
prosecution pending. The assessment of the DPC including 'unfit for promotion'
and the grading awarded are kept in a sealed cover. (Para 2.1 of DoPT O.M.
dated 14.9.92).
(e) A Government servant,
who is recommended for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee but in
whose case any of the circumstances mentioned in para (c) above arises after
the recommendations of the DPC are received but before he is actually promoted,
the recommendations of DPC will be considered as if his case had been placed in
a sealed cover by the DPC. He shall not be promoted until he is completely
exonerated of the charges against him.
(f) If any penalty is
imposed on the Government servant as a result of the disciplinary proceedings
or if he/she is found guilty in the criminal prosecution against him/her, the
findings of the sealed cover/covers shall not be acted upon. His/her case for
promotion may be considered by the next DPC in the normal course and having
regard to the penalty imposed on him/her (para 3.1 of DoPT O.M. dated
14.09.1992).
(g) In assessing the
suitability of the officer on whom a penalty has been imposed, the DPC will
take into account the circumstances leading to the imposition of the penalty
and decide whether in the light of general service record of the officer and
the fact of imposition of penalty, the officer should be considered for
promotion. The DPC, after due consideration, has authority to assess the
officer as 'unfit' for promotion. However, where the DPC considers that despite
the penalty the officer is suitable for promotion, the officer will be actually
promoted only after the currency of the penalty is over (para 13 of DoPT O.M.
dated 10.04.1989).
(h) Any proposal for
promotion has to be assessed by the DPC, on case to case basis, and the
practice of downgradation of APARs (earlier ACRs) by one level in all cases for
one time, where a penalty has been imposed in a year included in the assessment
matrix or till the date of DPC should be discontinued immediately, being
legally non-sustainable.
(i) While there is no
illegality in denying promotion during the currency of the penalty, denying
promotion in such cases after the period of penalty is over would be in
violation of the provisions of Article 20 of the Constitution of India.
(j) The appointing
authorities concerned should review comprehensively the cases of Government
servants, whose suitability for promotion to a higher grade has been kept in a
sealed cover on the expiry of 6 months from the date of convening the first
Departmental Promotion Committee which had adjudged his suitability and kept
its findings in the sealed cover. Such a review should be done subsequently
also every six months. The review should, inter alia, cover the progress made
in the disciplinary proceedings/criminal prosecution and the further measures
to be taken to expedite the completion. (Para 4 of O.M. dated 14.09.1992)
(k) In cases where the
disciplinary case/criminal prosecution against the Government servant is not
concluded even after the expiry of two years from the date of the meeting of
the first DPC which kept its findings in respect of the Government servant in a
sealed cover then subject to condition mentioned in Para 5 of this Department's
O.M. dated 14.09.1992, the appointing authority may consider desirability of
giving him ad-hoc promotion (Para 5 of this Department's O.M. dated 14.09.1992).
[O.M. No. 22011/4/2007-Estt.(D)
dated 28.04.2014]
(l) The seniority of such officer
who have been found fit by the DPC in terms of provisions in sub-para (g)
above, would be fixed according to the position of the officer in the panel on
the basis of which he is promoted on expiry of the period of currency of the
penalty. Since the
promotion is to take effect only from a date subsequent to the expiry of the
currency of the penalty, the officer would be entitled to pay fixation in the
promotional grade with effect from the date of actual promotion
only. Even if a person junior to him in the panel is promoted
earlier, it will have no bearing on the pay to be allowed on promotion to
the officer on whom a penalty was imposed, and there shall be no stepping up of
his pay. Similarly, as
the officer undergoing penalty is not to be promoted during the currency of the
penalty, the eligibility service in the promotional grade for further promotion
shall commence only from the date of actual promotion and in no case, it may be
related, even notionally, to the date of promotion of the junior in the panel.
[O.M. No. 22011/2/92-Estt.(D)
dated 03.11.1995 and
O.M. No. 22034/5/2004-Estt.(D)
dated 15.12.2004]
(m) Currency
period of Censure for the purpose of promotion
Sub-paragraphs (d), (f)
and (g) cited above are applicable in all the recognized penalties under CCS
(CCA) Rules including the minor penalty of Censure as well for which no
currency has been prescribed, it would mean that as per sub-para (g), if the
DPC considers the officer fit for promotion notwithstanding the award of
censure, he / she can be promoted without referring to the currency of penalty.
[O.M. No. 22011/4/2007-Estt(D)
dated 21.11.2016]
11. Validity
of the proceedings of the DPCs when one member is absent
The proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee shall be
legally valid and can be acted upon notwithstanding the absence of any of its
members other than the Chairman provided that the member was duly invited but
he absented himself for one reason or the other and there was no deliberate
attempt to exclude him from the deliberation of the DPC and provided further
that the majority of the members constituting the Departmental Promotion
Committee were present in the meeting.
[Para 15 of O.M. No.
22011/5/86-Estt.(D) dated 10.04.1989]
12. PROCESSING
AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEES
12.1 Processing of recommendations of
DPC
The recommendations of the DPC are advisory in nature and should
be duly approved by the appointing authority. Before the recommendations are so
approved the appointing authority shall consult all concerned as indicated
below, without undue delay.
(a) Consultation
with UPSC
The recommendations of the DPC whether it included a Member of
the UPSC or not should be referred to the Commission for approval, if -
(i) Consultation with the
Commission is mandatory under Article 320(3) of the Constitution, read with
UPSC (Exemption from Consultation) Regulations, 1958. However, a reference may
be made to the Regulations, as and when necessary.
(ii) The Member of the
Commission who presides over the DPC specifically desires that the Commission
should be consulted.
(b) Approval
of ACC
Where the posts fall within the purview of the Appointments
Committee of the Cabinet, the approval of ACC should also be obtained.
[Paras 16.1 to 16.3 of O.M. No.
22011/5/86-Estt.(D) dated 10.04.1989]
12.1.1 Procedure
to be followed when the Appointing Authority does not agree with
Recommendations of DPC.
(a) There may be certain occasions when the
appointing authority may find it necessary to disagree with the recommendations
of the DPC. The procedure to be followed in such cases is indicated below.
(b) Where UPSC is associated with the DPC the
recommendations of the DPC should be treated as recommendations of UPSC. If it
is so considered necessary by the appointing authority to vary or disagree with
the recommendations of the DPC the prescribed procedure for over-ruling the
recommendations of UPSC (not incorporated herein) should be followed.
(c) The recommendations of the DPC on which UPSC is
not represented should be dealt with as under :
(i) Where the appointing
authority, being lower than the President of India, does not agree with the
recommendations of the DPC, such appointing authority should indicate the
reasons for disagreeing and refer the entire matter to the DPC for reconsideration
of its earlier recommendations. In case the DPC reiterates its earlier
recommendations, giving also reasons in support thereof, the appointing
authority may accept the recommendations, if the reasons adduced by the DPC are
convincing; if that authority does not accept the recommendations of the DPC it
shall submit the papers to the next higher authority with its own
recommendations. The decision of the next higher authority shall be final.
(ii) Where the appointing
authority is the President of India, the recommendations of the DPC should be
submitted to the Minister-in-Charge of the Department concerned for acceptance
or otherwise of the recommendations. In case the circumstances do necessitate,
the Minister may refer the matter again to the DPC for reconsideration of its
earlier recommendations. If the DPC reiterates its earlier recommendations
giving also reasons in support thereof, the matter should be placed before the
Minister for his decision. The decision taken by the Minister either to accept
or to vary the recommendations of the DPC shall be final.
[Paras 16.4.1 to
16.4.3 of O.M. No. 22011/5/86-Estt.(D) dated 10.04.1989]
12.2 Time
limit for Appointing Authority to take decision on the recommendations of DPC
12.2.1 In cases
excepting those which require the approval of the Appointments Committee of the
Cabinet the appointing authority should take a decision either to accept or
disagree with the recommendations of the DPC within a time-limit of three
months (from the date of the DPC meeting or the date of communication of the
UPSC’s approval to the panel, where such approval is required). Where the
appointing authority proposes to disagree with the recommendations, the
relevant papers should be submitted by the appointing authority to the next
higher authority with its own recommendations by the expiry of the period of
three months. In those cases in which the UPSC is associated with the DPC and
the appointing authority proposes to disagree with the recommendations of the
DPC, the case should be forwarded to the Establishment Officer in the
Department of Personnel and Training for placing the matter before the
Appointments Committee of the Cabinet as soon as possible and, in any case, not
later than three months from the date on which the validity of the panel
commences.
12.2.2 In
cases where the panel prepared by the DPC requires the approval of the ACC,
proposals therefor along with the recommendations of the Minister-in-charge
should be sent to the Establishment Officer before expiry of the same
time-limit of three months.
[Paras 16.5.1
and 16.5.2 of O.M. No. 22011/5/86-Estt.(D) dated 10.04.1989]
12.3 Fresh Vigilance clearance before
actual promotion/confirmation
A clearance from the Vigilance Section of the Office/ Department
should also be obtained before making actual promotion or confirmation of
officer approved by DPC to ensure that no disciplinary proceedings are pending
against the officer concerned.
[Para 17.1 of O.M. No.
22011/5/86-Estt.(D) dated 10.04.1989]
13. Order in which promotions to be
made
13.1 Promotion
of whatever duration should as far as possible be made in the order in which
the names of the officers appear in the panel. Exception to this rule may be
necessary where a large number of vacancies are to be within a comparatively
short period or it is convenient / and desirable to make postings with due
regard to the location and experience of the officers concerned or where short
term vacancies have to be filled on local and ad-hoc basis.
[Para 17.2 of
O.M. No. 22011/5/86-Estt.(D) dated 10.04.1989]
13.2 If
a person's name is included in the panel for promotion to the higher post (to
which appointment can be made by promotion as well as by direct recruitment)
and also in the panel for direct recruitment to the said higher post, he should
be appointed as a direct recruit or as a promotee, having regard to the fact
whether his turn for appointment comes earlier from the direct recruitment list
or from the promotion list, as the case may be.
[Para 17.3 of
O.M. No. 22011/5/86-Estt.(D) dated 10.04.1989]
14. Promotion
of officers on deputation/foreign service/study leave
14.1 If
the panel contains the name of a person who has gone on deputation or on
foreign Service in the public interest including a person who has gone on study
leave, provision should be made for his regaining the temporarily lost
seniority in the higher grade on his return to the cadre. Therefore, such an officer
need not be reconsidered by a fresh DPC, if any, subsequently held, while he
continues to be on deputation/foreign service/study leave so long as any
officer junior to him in the panel is not required to be so considered by a fresh
DPC irrespective of the fact whether he might or might not have got the benefit
of proforma promotion under the NBR, The same treatment will be given to an
officer included in the panel who could have been promoted within the currency
of the panel but for his being away on deputation.
14.2 In
case the officer is serving on an ex-cadre post on his own volition by applying
in response to an advertisement, he should be required to revert to his parent
cadre immediately when due for promotion, failing which his name shall be
removed from the panel. On his reverting to the parent cadre after a period of
two years he will have no claim for promotion to the higher grade on the basis
of that panel. He should be considered in the normal course along with other
eligible officers when the next panel is prepared and he should be promoted to
the higher grade according to his position in the fresh panel. His seniority,
in that event, shall be determined on the basis of the position assigned to him
in the fresh panel with reference to which he is promoted to the higher grade.
(If the panel contains the name of an officer on study leave, he should be
promoted to the higher post on return from the study leave. He should also be
given seniority according to his position in the panel and not on the basis of
the date of promotion).
[Paras 17.4.1 - 17.4.2 of O.M.
No. 22011/5/86-Estt.(D) dated 10.04.1989]
15. Validity
of Panel in case of those who are on long leave
If on the basis of empanelment for promotion against vacancies
arising in a vacancy year, a promotion order contains name of a person who is
on a sanctioned leave, a copy of the same is to be endorsed to the officer at
his leave address by registered/speed post etc. along with necessary advice
about the authority to whom he is to report for assuming charge of the higher
post. If the Officer assumes charge of the higher promotional post by
curtailing leave, if necessary, within the currency of the vacancy year for
which the panel is prepared, or within six months from the date of the
promotion order, or before the last person borne on the panel is offered
promotion without being required to be reassessed by a fresh DPC, whichever is
later, the officer will not be required to be considered afresh by the next DPC
and he will retain his seniority as per the position in the panel on the basis
of which he has been promoted. If, however, he does not join to assume charge
of the higher post within the period as specified above and continues to remain
on long leave or seeks further extension of leave, the order of promotion,
insofar as the said officer is concerned, will become invalid and the officer
will be required to be considered afresh by the next DPC held in the normal
course after he joins his duty on expiry of the leave. His seniority on
subsequent promotion will be as per the position in the fresh panel. This will
equally apply to cases of promotion by mode of selection as well as
non-selection. While referring the order of promotion to the officer on leave,
it would be necessary to bring to his/her notice the above position.
[O.M. No. 22034/5/2002-Estt.(D)
dated 04.08.2004]
16. Date
from which promotions are to be treated as Regular
16.1 The
general principle is that promotion of officers included in the panel would be
regular from the date of validity of the panel or the date of their actual
promotion whichever is later.
16.2 In cases where the recommendations for promotion are made
by the DPC presided over by a Member of the UPSC and such recommendations do
not require to be approved by the Commission, the date of Commission's letter
forwarding fair copies of the minutes duly signed by the Chairman of the DPC or
the date of the actual promotion of the officers, whichever is later, should be
reckoned as the date of regular promotion of the officer. In cases where the
Commission's approval is also required the date of UPSC's letter communicating
its approval or the date of actual promotion of the officer whichever is later
will be the relevant date. In all other cases the date on which promotion will
be effective will be the date on which the officer was actually promoted or the
date of the meeting of the DPC whichever is later. Where the meeting of the DPC
extends over more than one day the last date on which the DPC met shall be
recorded as the date of meeting of the DPC.
16.3 Appointments to posts falling within the purview of ACC
can, however, be treated as regular only from the date of approval of ACC or
actual promotion whichever is later except in particular cases where the ACC
approves appointments from some other date.
[Paras 17.10 and 17.11 of O.M.
No. 22011/5/86-Estt.(D) dated 10.04.1989]
17. Refusal
of Promotion
When a Government employee does not want to accept a promotion
which is offered to him he may make a written request that he may not be
promoted and the request will be considered by the appointing authority, taking
relevant aspects into consideration. If the reasons adduced for refusal of
promotion are acceptable to the appointing authority, the next person in the
select list may be promoted. However,
since it may not be administratively possible or desirable to offer appointment
to the persons who initially refused promotion, on every occasion on which a
vacancy arises, during the period of validity of the panel, no fresh offer of
appointment on promotion shall be made in such cases for a period of one year
from the date of refusal of first promotion or till a next vacancy arises
whichever is later. On
the eventual promotion to the higher grade, such Government servant will lose
seniority vis-a-vis his juniors promoted to the higher grade earlier
irrespective of the fact whether the posts in question are filled by selection
or otherwise. The above
mentioned policy will not apply where ad-hoc promotions against short term
vacancies are refused.
[Para 17.12 of
O.M. No. 22011/5/86-Estt.(D) dated 10.04.1989]
18. Validity
period of the panel
18.1 The panel for promotion drawn up by
DPC for 'selection' posts would normally be valid for one year. It should cease
to be in force on the expiry of a period of one year and six months or when a
fresh panel is prepared, whichever is earlier.
18.2 The date of commencement of the
validity of panel will be the date on which the DPC meets. In case the DPC
meets on more than one day, the last date of the meeting would be the date of
commencement of the validity of the panel. In case the panel requires,
partially or wholly, the approval of the Commission, the date of validity of
panel would be the date (of Commission's letter) communicating their approval
to the panel. It is important to ensure that the - Commission's approval to the
panel is obtained, where necessary, with the least possible delay.
[Paras 17.13.1
and 17.13.2 of O.M. No. 22011/5/86-Estt.(D) dated 10.04.1989]
19. Review
of Panels
The 'select list' should be periodically reviewed. The names of those officers
who have already been promoted (otherwise than on a local or purely temporary
basis) and continue to officiate should be removed from the list and rest of
the names, if they are still within the consideration zone, along with others
who may now be included in the field of choice should be considered for the
'select list’ for the subsequent period.
[Para 17.14 of O.M. No.
22011/5/86-Estt.(D) dated 10.04.1989]
20. REVIEW DPCs
20.1 The
proceedings of any DPC may be reviewed only if the DPC has not taken all
material facts into consideration or if material facts have not been brought to
the notice of the DPC or if there have been grave errors in the procedure
followed by the DPC. Thus, it may be necessary to convene Review DPCs to
rectify certain unintentional mistakes, e.g.
(a) Non-reporting of vacancies due to error or
omission (i.e. though the vacancies were available at the time of holding of
DPC meeting, these were not reported to the DPC. This
leads to injustice to the officers concerned by artificially restricting the
zone of consideration); or
(b) where eligible persons were omitted to be
considered; or
(c) where ineligible persons were considered by
mistake; or
(d) where the seniority of a person is revised with
retrospective effect resulting in a variance of the seniority list placed
before the DPC; or
(e) Where some procedural irregularity was committed
by a DPC; or
(f) Where adverse remarks in the CRs were toned down
or expunged after the DPC had considered the case of the officer.
These instances are not exhaustive but only illustrative.
[Para 18.1 of O.M. No.
22011/5/86-Estt.(D) dated 10.04.1989 and
O.M. No. 220131/1/97-Estt.(D)
dated 13.04.1998]
20.2 Over
reporting of vacancies is also one of the mistakes which needs to be rectified
by holding a Review DPC. Therefore,
the above provision is required to be read to cover this situation also
however, in the case of over reporting of vacancies, a Review DPC may be held
only if the change in the number of vacancies would result in exclusion of any
person(s) empanelled by the original DPC on account of over-reporting of
vacancies which led to inflated zone of consideration. As
such, no Review DPC need be convened where it may prove to be infructuous
exercise.
[O.M. No. 220131/1/97-Estt.(D)
dated 13.04.1998]
20.3 Scope
and procedure of Review
20.3.1 A Review
DPC should consider only those persons who were eligible as on the date of
meeting of original DPC. That is, persons who became eligible on a subsequent
date should not be considered. Such cases will, of course, come up for
consideration by a subsequent regular DPC. Further the review DPC should
restrict its scrutiny to the APARs for the period relevant to the first DPC.
The APARs written for subsequent periods should not be considered. If any
adverse remarks relating to the relevant period, were toned down or expunged,
the modified APATs should be considered as if the original adverse remarks did
not exist at all.
[Para 18.2 of O.M. No.
22011/5/86-Estt.(D) dated 10.04.1989]
20.3.2 A
Review DPC is required to consider the case again only with reference to the
technical or factual mistakes that took place earlier and it should neither
change the grading of an officer without any valid reason (which should be
recorded) nor change the zone of consideration nor take into account any
increase in the number of vacancies which might have occurred subsequently.
[Para 18.3 of O.M. No.
22011/5/86-Estt.(D) dated 10.04.1989]
20.3.3 In
cases where the adverse remarks were toned down or expunged subsequent to
consideration by the DPC, the procedure set out herein may be followed. The
appointing authority should scrutinise the case with a view to decide whether
or not a review by the DPC is justified, taking into account the nature of the
adverse remarks toned down or expunged. In cases where the UPSC have been
associated with the DPC, approval of the Commission would be necessary for a
review of the case by the DPC.
[Para 18.4.1 of O.M. No.
22011/5/86-Estt.(D) dated 10.04.1989]
20.3.4 While considering a deferred case, or review of the case
of a superseded officer, if the DPC finds the officer fit for
promotion/confirmation, it would place him at the appropriate place in the
relevant select list/list of officers considered fit for confirmation or
promotion after taking into account the toned down remarks or expunged remarks
and his promotion and confirmation will be regulated in the manner indicated
below.
[Para 18.4.2 of O.M. No.
22011/5/86-Estt.(D) dated 10.04.1989]
20.4 Consequential
benefits in case of retrospective promotion
20.4.1 If the
officer placed junior to the officer concerned have been promoted, he should be
promoted immediately and if there is no vacancy the junior most person
officiating in the higher grade should be reverted to accommodate him. On promotion, his pay should
be fixed under F.R. 27 at the stage it would have reached, had he been promoted
from the date the officer immediately below him was promoted but no arrears
would be admissible. The seniority of the officer would be determined in the
order in which his name, on review, has been placed in the select list by DPC.
If in any such case a minimum period of qualifying service is prescribed for
promotion to higher grade, the period from which an officer placed below the
officer concerned in the select list was promoted to the higher grade, should
be reckoned towards the qualifying period of service for the purpose of
determining his eligibility for promotion to the next higher grade.
[Para 18.4.3 of
O.M. No. 22011/5/86-Estt.(D) dated 10.04.1989]
20.4.2 In the
case of confirmation, if the officer concerned is recommended for confirmation
on the basis of review by the DCC, he should be confirmed and the seniority
already allotted to him on the basis of review should not be disturbed by the
delay in confirmation.
[Para 18.4.4 of O.M. No.
22011/5/86-Estt.(D) dated 10.04.1989]
20.4.3 A Government servant who is not recommended in the panel
by the original / supplementary DPC but later on is recommended in the panel by
a review DPC but has since retired may be given the benefit of notional
promotion w.e.f. the date of promotion of his immediate junior in the reviewed
panel and fixation of notional pay subject to the fulfilment of the following
conditions:
(i) That the officer who is immediate junior to the
retired Government servant assumed charge of the higher post on or before the
date of superannuation of the retired Government servant.
(ii) That the said retired Government servant was
clear from vigilance angle on the date of promotion of his immediate junior.
(iii) A retired Government servant who is considered
for notional promotion from the date of promotion of his immediate junior on
the recommendation of a review DPC would also be entitled to fixation of
pension on the basis of such notional pay.
(iv) The notional promotion, notional pay fixation
and revision of pension shall be further subject to extant rules on promotion,
pay fixation and CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Actual increase in pension shall be
given only from the date of approval of reviewed panel by the competent
authority. No arrears shall be paid.
[Para 2 of O.M. No.
22011/3/2013-Estt.(D) dated 15.11.2018]
~~~~~
APPENDIX
References (in chronological order)
******
Source : https://doptcirculars.nic.in/OM/ViewOM.aspx?id=389&headid=4
