we want to know about the date of online application form of bsnl jto so plz give What is the date to apply for BSNL JTO exam ?. of India Enterprise). Exam Notification Junior Telecom Officer (Telecom) circulated vide BSNL Corporate Office Letter No Note: Vacancy for the Year includes the Vacancy of Year (Total=88;UR=67, SC=08, ST= ). With the approval of BSNL Board and in supersession of the Recruitment Rules JTO(T) and he/she has to appear a fresh in the subsequent LICE/Direct.

Author: Kijas Bragul
Country: Sudan
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Literature
Published (Last): 8 March 2004
Pages: 35
PDF File Size: 9.7 Mb
ePub File Size: 10.96 Mb
ISBN: 390-4-59634-768-8
Downloads: 42512
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Kagacage

The test was conducted on The basic qualification prescribed by the said Rule was matriculation or equivalent. This Rule ceased to exist on After the test of The appellants herein have written the examination and are awaiting the notifidation. Applicants have come to know that the respondents are about to promote and post third party candidates, who have not written the examination and who do not possess the mandatory educational qualifications to write the same, into the vacancies that have been notified to be filled up on the basis of the LICE conducted on 2.

The applicants who have already put in more than two decades of service have now reached the age bar prescribed by the Rules in this respect. The number of applicants bsnnl have applied for and written the said examination is only The entire number vsnl the officiating JTOs is only So, together, the number of applicants of the LICE is only Even after promoting and posting all these applicants irrespective of the results of the LICE conducted on 2. If all the officiating JTOs, are also to be promoted and posted as JTO, in spite of their non qualification and ineligibility to be considered against the vacancies of the period, there will remain vacancies of JTO to be filled up in the Kerala Circle.

In this back ground, the respondents are liable to be directed to treat the above applicants as walk in group as a one time measure, and to promote and post them as JTO as they are bznl and otherwise qualified and eligible for the same under the JTO Recruitment Rulesafter imparting them the mandatory preposting departmental training. In the meanwhile, the above applicants have reached the land mark age of 50 years, rendering them ineligible to nohification any further promotion examinations, due to the age bar condition prescribed by the recruitment rules.

This valuable right of the applicants to write the examination for promotion has been denied to them bsnp for any fault on their part, but due to the inertia and lapses on the part ontification the respondents. Hence, the respondents are bound to adopt remedial measures to redress the grievances of the applicants in the matter. The enthusiasm exhibited by the respondents so far to favour the OC candidates of the screening test of The courts of law up to the apex court of the country had to interfere to prevent the respondents from perpetrating the 2013–14 of diverting posts from the Direct Recruitment Quota for posting the OC candidates of the screening test, in spite of the notifications thereto and the undertaking by the applicants of the said screening test not to put up claims otherwise and for other reasons stated above etc.


Meerabai.E.B vs The Chairman And Managing on 19 January,

The screening test of The candidates of the said test, when given the required training, are found to be effective and able JTOs by the respondents. Thus it can be seen that it actually is the pre-posting training that makes all the difference. So if educationally higher qualified employees like the above applicants are given the training, they will prove more efficient and effective in discharging the duties of the office of the JTO.

Similarly, in Rupa Rani Rakshit vs.

Jharkhand Gramin Bank AIR SC the Apex Court has laid down the law that in cases where promotion is made without following the rules, the service rendered in pursuance should not be notiffication for the purpose of seniority.

So, viewed from any angle, the successful candidates of the screening test of Unfortunately, the number of educationally qualified applicants under the prevalent JTO Recruitment Rules for the LICE is much less than the vacancies existing for the period from to Applicants aver that the instance of the maticulates having ‘excelled’ as JTOs after they were given the required training is notifjcation the respondents.

This the respondents are doing, ignoring the qualified as per the prevailing Rules, like the above applicants. The main relief sought by the applicants is to declare that they who have lost chances of writing the examination for promotion as JTO and have hence become age barred now for the same, due to the inordinate delay and failure exclusively of the respondents to have conducted them at the appropriate times, deserve to be compensated and hence are entitled to be treated as walk in group as a onetime measure, and promoted and posted as JTOs into vacancies of JTO for the relevant period.


With a view to tone up the efficiency in services, certain changes were made by the competent authority to improve the quality 2013-144 manpower of the organization. That was necessitated to commensurate with the raised status and raised pay of the post. Notifidation of Recruitment Rules and Departmental Examinations are absolutely within 2013–14 domain of the Executive and such matters have to serve the needs of the Organization.

Screening test in the year was conducted for filling the vacancies which arise between to and was based on Recruitment Rules. Since Recruitment Rules came into existence on noitfication Since no Screening Test was conducted from tillthe qualifying screening test for promotion to JTOs was held on The recruitment to the cadre of JTO is being conducted as per the provisions contained in Annexure A-7 Recruitment Rules which came into force with effect from Subsequently the competent authority has reduced the eligible service to 7 notiifcation vide Corporate Office Letter No.

There is no provision in the Recruitment Rule to promote the bdnl who possess the educational qualification as prescribed in the Recruitment Rule, without conducting departmental examination as provided under the relevant Recruitment Rules.

It is submitted that further recruitment to the JTO cadre can be made only under the new rule. In case the applicants possess educational qualification and other eligibility conditions specified in the new recruitment rule, jti can also appear for the examination.

Hence the applicants cannot be promoted in that way also. Also they have got enough chances notificattion the earlier examinations. These applicants have appeared in the examination that was conducted on 2. They are eligible and they will get promotion if they pass. If the Recruitment 2013–14 are relaxed selectively for the benefit of the applicants, it would have been great injustice to similarly placed other persons. Also it is submitted that no such decision has been taken by the competent authority to promote those candidates who do not possess the notificatio qualification prescribed in the JTO Recruitment Rule and have not written the LICE held on 2.

The matter of conducting of departmental examination and framing rules and regulations and fixing standard for the same, are absolutely within the domain of the competent authority and the various judicial forums of the country upheld the said decision also. The Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in O. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh in its judgment dated 3. Jaya Rao declared that ‘at any rate no individual has a fundamental or legal right, to insist that the standards of a given test must be of a particular level, notifiaction less compel the authority to relax the notificatioj stipulated by it.

Courts and Tribunals can niether prescribe the qualifications nor entrench upon the power of the concerned authority so long as the qualifications prescribed by the employer is reasonably relevant and has a rational nexus with the functions and duties attached to the post and are not violative of any provisions of the constitution’.

What is the date of online application form of BSNL JTO?

Heard the counsel for the parties and considered the written submissions made. This is another of those cases where excess litigation by different interest groups have resulted in orders being issued in respect of reliefs asked for, then challenged and the resultant effect of the same on different interest groups who have been subsequently affected by amendments in JTO Recruitment Rules which makes them ineligible by the time they come up for promotion.

Respondents in Annexure R-1 c mentions amendments to para i B ii and para ii in Col. A screening test was held on A notufication attempt to adjust these candidates by creating supernumerary posts was also declared illegal by Punjab and Haryana High Court.

The Tribunal in T. Some candidates challenged this notification Annexure R-2 b by filing O. A before this Tribunal. This Jyo in O. The Tribunal disposed of the above O. As by a common order dated It notivication observed therein:. Contrary to that, in the present notification all the vacancies en-bloc are notified and the crucial date for reckoning notificatino age is notified as the In other words, it is evident that candidates who became age barred on the crucial date so fixed, could not compete in the examination even though they were qualified to appear in the examination during the relevant year in which the vacancies had arisen.

The manner of filling bsno the vacancies en-bloc for all these years without conducting any examination in the relevant year and by conducting a common examination and further fixing the crucial date regarding age as also the service condition by prescribing a cut off date, as is now done, clearly takes away the right of the applicants to be considered for promotion, despite the fact that they were qualified in terms of the recruitment rules and nto entitled to be considered against the vacancies which arose in the relevant recruitment year.


In other words it is only by the efflux of time and due to the inaction on the part of the respondents to conduct the examination every year for promotion, that they would become ineligible to appear for the examination.

Even though amended rule is not given any retrospective operation by any express provision, the effect of this amendment is retroactive as it would notifiation to all the vacancies which have arisen in the past several years.

It is notificatkon clear that by fixing a common date for both the regular service condition to be satisfied as 1st July, and by fixing the crucial date for reckoning age as Conducting a common examination by itself may not be invalid provided their eligibility to participate in the examination is determined with reference to a date in the relevant year of recruitment when the vacancies arose.

Therefore even after a candidate passes the examination and a list is prepared, it is for the Committee to finally prepare a select list notificqtion promotion.

Therefore the rule implies a Departmental Promotion Committee to meet and they have to conduct the exercise for notificatjon from among the eligible candidates as against the vacancy position notiication the relevant Recruitment Year. Since notificatino recruitment to the post of Junior Telecom Officer is in the ratio of In notofication connection we may also point out that the the Calcutta Circle of the respondents- Corporation has published a similar notification for conducting the examination, but they have clearly notified the year-wise vacancies.

The amendment was made subsequent to the notification and after the selection procedure commenced. Rangaiah and Others vs. The vacancies which occurred prior to the amended rules would be governed by the old rules and not by the amended rules.

It was observed that there is not even a slightest doubt that the posts which fell vacant prior to the amended rules would notificatlon governed by the old rules and nptification by the new rules In this case, though there is no express rule for preparation of a panel every year for the reasons which were already stated, i.

But for reasons best known to the respondents when they could not conduct the examination in the manner as pointed out, it may not be illegal to conduct a common examination subsequently for the past recruitment years, to which selection is to be made.

In other words, if the year-wise vacancies are notified and promotional exercise is done, from among the eligible candidates, the eligibility being determined with regard to any cut off date during the relevant year of recruitment, there would not have been any arbitrariness but the amendment now made after the notification issued and the selection procedure commenced, hence such amendment cannot have any validity with reference to the vacancies which have already arisen in the respective year of recruitment.

Any amendment made to the rule after the selection process has commenced can have prospective effect only. In the aforesaid case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court on a consideration of notivication relevant rules as well as the instructions issued by the Govt. But no such list having been prepared as on September 1.

On this conclusion the Court had held notifixation the vacancies available prior to 1. In State of Manipur and Others vs.

Ongbi Memcha Devi Smt. It was held as follows: The grievance of the appellant is that this mode of selection is disregard of the instructions contained in the office memorandum dated operated to his prejudice appears to be justified because if separate selection had been made for the vacancies which occurred in the yearsand the field of choice would have been much more restricted and the appellant would have had better chances of being selected.

Further the vacancies were calculated up to Therefore the selection procedure adopted for filling up those vacancies calculated up to Therefore the respondents’ attempt to fill up the vacancies en- bloc with the amended qualification is clearly wrong and illegal. Chempazhanthiyil contends that the action of the respondents in filling up the vacancies up to We have persued Annexure A10 judgment produced in the said case.

That was a case of Telecom Notiffication Assistants which was one of the eligible cadres for promotion to the post of JTO on the basis of screening test and seniority. By notification dated By another notification, a second qualifying screening test was notified on 8. The BSNL had decided to divert posts of TTAs who had qualified in the screening test, for training every year, by diverting the post of direct recruitment. It was contended that such diversion should be declared as illegal.

There was also a contention regarding the amendment made in