Skill Development Department trespasses ARI & Trainings to benefit some persons

A bureaucrat “More Loyal than the King”!

• Submits whimsical proposal for benefitting a few undeserving employees to quench their greed.
•  Director, Department of Skill Development, Chairman of the Committee himself approve the agenda points 5 in yesterday SLDPC meeting, when he himself rejected the same on 06-08-2021, without any change in rules.
•  The Department of Skill Development needs a overhauling as there are several black sheep made their entry.
•  All the attached teaching staff must be declared deadwood and immediate shown the door as they have become liabilities on the department.

JJ CORRESPONDENT

Jammu, May 28: How can the Director, Department of Skill Development, Chairman of the Committee approve the same agenda in yesterday (27-05-2022) SLDPC meeting when he himself has rejected the same in previous SLDPC held on 06-08-2021? What compelled the Director, Department of Skill Development, Chairman of the Committee to approve the same which is now accordance with law? How can a matriculate instructor teach the matriculate students of same qualification? These are some serious concerns which show that the Department of Skill Development need a serious attention and also need a surgical strike to clean the mess in the department, besides unnecessary and illegal attachments.
On May 27, 2022 SLDPC was convened by Directorate of Skill Development Department. Agenda Point No. 5 is about placement for the post of Group Instructor: It says “10 posts of Group Instructors have been created in the Department in 2009. Till date no recruitment rules have been framed for the said category.” Further it adds that “In the past various posts of Group Instructors were utilised for promotion of the incumbent from the feeding category of Vocational Instructors. So it is proposed to utilise the posts again.”
Circular No.02 ARI & Trainings of 2014 dated 09-04-2014 disallows utilisation of posts without method of recruitment provided for the purpose.
In the previous DPC held on 06-08-2021 the same Member Secretary Mohammad Ashraf Wani proposed the same at Agenda Point No 5 but the Director as Chairman of the Committee did not approve this point for want of recruitment rules of the post of Group Instructor. It is hard to digest how he approves it for today’s meeting of SLDPC. Secondly, the Member Secretary of the Committee has proposed Vocational Instructors with Matric plus ITI plus CTI for Group Instructor. Means he is giving laxity to a category. Further, as per his opinion they can act as Head of Institutes where there are no regular Head of Institutes. He has well understood that Group Instructor is a superior Post. But he is ignoring the fact that basic qualification for admission to the trades in ITIs is also Matric (academically). Also department is appointing Vocational Instructors having Graduation or 3 year Diploma as qualification. How can their superiors (Group Instructors) be Matric with ITI plus CTI. How far is his proposal justifiable?
I am compelled to crack a crude joke here: One Gulam Hassan aka Hassan Mechanic was promoted as Superintendent ITI (Head of Institute) on seniority basis. He was Matric pass in adeeb. He was literate to the extent that he could not write Casual Leave for himself. One day he asked his head clerk to write a casual leave for him. The head clerk wrote resignation instead of casual leave and the officer put his signature with just capital H and then forwarded it to higher authority.
In the agenda of the present DPC held on 27-05-2022 two Vocational Instructors (stenography) have been declared ineligible for the promotion on the basis of being non- CTI and not having recruitment rules in their favour. One of them is PG in English with ITI in stenography and another is Graduate with ITI in stenography.
For last 20 years they have been running offices of their concerned ITIs drafting official letters as well as running their trades. Why laxity of rules as proposed here is not in their favour? All senior and junior Vocational Instructors (stenography) retired stagnant on their posts. Why is tendency in the proposal shown towards a particular category here? How did one incumbent proposed for Group Instructor post celebrate in advance his promotion and posting as Head of Institute for ITI Ruhama ringing up his colleagues there when the DPC just ended?
ARI and Trainings is meant to frame rules and all departments are to execute them. Why to cross the line? Why have not been posts of Group Instructors incorporated in the recruitment rules? Vocational Instructors (Employability Skills) and Vocational Instructors (stenography) have submitted dozens of representations in writing and personal for utilisation of Group Instructor Posts for non- CTI Vocational Instructors. The same was promised. But why breach of promise today; it is mystery.