God save the Army from ineligible COs
1. The trg duration for the WO batches considered in SB3 of Jan 2023 was Six Months only. Their contemporaries in IMA underwent 18 months trg with differentphysical stds due to Male Female anatomical differences. Both got commissioned as Lt n are hvg similar condns of service now. What is the need of hvg addl trg of one Yr at IMA n addl 4 months at OTA? Isn't govt exchequer monetarily at loss for this addl trg pd to achieve same result???
2. The trg duration for the WO batches considered in SB3 of Jan 2023 during JC (MLTOC) with reduced professional syllabus was Six Weeks only. Their contemporary Gentlemen offrs underwent earlier 12 or now 10 weeks trg. And both are being emp for similar duties n are hvg similar condns of service now. What is the need of hvg addl trg of 4-6 weeks? Isn't govt exchequer monetarily at loss for this addl trg pd for Gentlemen Offrs to achieve same result???
3. *The trg duration for the WO batches considered in SB3 of Jan 2023 during proposed SC is again Six Weeks only*. Their contemporary Gentlemen offrs underwent earliier min 10 weeks trg. Both are emp for similar duties n are hvg similar condns of service now as COs. What is the need n logic of hvg addl trg of 4 weeks for Gentlemen offrs going to Comd similar units now? Isn't govt exchequer monetarily at loss for this addl trg pd for Gentlemen Offrs to achieve same results??? Is ARTRAC a welfare comd or trg comd meant for enforcement of similar rigorous trg for all irrespective of genders. The War College too seems to be diluting it's professional stds.
4. SCO offrs are not considered for Comd appts as if they hv been trained differently for Adm duties only. They too undergo similar trg n courses as that mandatory for WOs. Infact they hv more setvice n maturity to handle Comd appts becos of better EQ n empathy to men. Why then they are unfit for Comd n are emp only on Staff, ERE or Regtl appts?
5. The course profile of Gentlemen Offrs vis a vis WOs of same batch on comparison reveals that some if the WOs were at the bottom rung in career courses n are now being allotted Comd Criteria appts whereas Gentlemen offrs even with Staff Course Qualifications are superseded due to ltd vacancies. There is no comparison on account of CRs too. The cutoff CR gratings of Gentlemen offrs n WOs of same batch is poles apart n Gentlemen offrs with CR gradings close to SB3 cutoff are being appt for mundane appts like NCC, MCO, Est Offr, Camp Comdts, Edn Offr, etc whereas with lower merit on courses n CR, WOs are being given Comd criteria appts, which will have serious manifestations on the trg n op preparedness of units n personnel. Why MS br has dubious stds n what is the compulsion for making such hasty decisions which will kill the essence of meritocracy in Army? It is further learnt that with one or two AE reports in next yr or two, these same WOs will be eligible for screening by SB2 too. And due to the specifically allotted vacancies, they will surely pick up Brig's rk too.
6. All Gentlemen offrs of similar batches hv more wide n prosperous experience of comdg tps as most of the WOs every yr hv been availing full quota of lve along with Maternity Lves, Child Care Lves, Furlough, absenting themselves on some pretext or the other from max trg exs n op dscns. Barring few all WOs with nearly an average 20 yrs service, none has lve accumulated as an average Gentlemen offr would hv. This itself is a testimony of commitment to the appts held by them in past. The staff experience of WOs is equally affected. Also, nearly all of them hv availed the MS br magnanimous clause of Compassionate Postings (even multiple times) on various pretext which if checked deliberately will embarrass the bd of offrs who recommended their CG postings n extant welfare bd @SB-3. Spouse coord postings are as such being made reg without exceptions to suit their personal reqmts only rather than in org interests.
7. Most of the WOs being considered for Comd hv already achieved the age of 46 yrs n as per age criteria not fit to be placed as COs of units. Why are exceptions or waivers being given on issues which hv direct repercussions on the basic thread n ethos of Unit Comd.
8. Also, some of these WOs are long term LMCs and bal are hvg severe Obesity, Med, Surg, Gynae issues which they hv been successfully hiding till now. No SRMB has been done for the WOs, whereas LMC Gentlemen offrs of batches screened after 2012 are suffering the wrath of such bds. To an extent approx 15 offrs of 2003 batch hvg declared B FIT in SB3 were not even found Fit even for Staff/ERE/Instructional appts leave aside Comd Criteria appts. 14 hv got redress through AFT recently hovered one still remains a approved cum superseded Lt Col for posterity. It is requested that all approved WOs must go thru Spl Med exam and only thise declared Fit for Comd appts be appointed on such appts.
9. In the pretext of honouring the one sided non holistic dirns of Honble Supreme Court, MS br is compromising on various extant rules n provns laid down after yrs of experience n on grnd implementation. The basic philosophy of HR mgt for offrs is under threat n likely to hv negative results in near future itself. So many policies, tiles, regs hv been ignored to suit the reqmts of WOs, MS br must inform all offrs abt these exceptions, policy changes etc soon less the case becomes a never ending law suits.
10. At one end govt is taking plea of meritocracy for Agniveer recruitment and at this end it is nearly distributing freebies to the WOs as if they were BPL citizens.
11. Hence, why is MS br compulsorily giving Comd criteria appts to these early WO batches with ltd comd n staff experience, below merit overall performance, ltd physical service, n lower phy stds ? Also, a if thry hv gone thru separate n spl SB3, then why can't MS br hv separate emp options n rules for these batches, they be emp in Staff, ERE n Instructional appts. The short cut to success method adopted by bunch of compromised quality WOs n MS br to save it's own skin in front of Supreme Court is likely to affect the morale, motivation n professional envt of one if the most professional Armies in the world soon. There is an urgent n inescapable need to stop this unthoughtful act of disservice to the nation n Army as an org.
It is once again reiterated that no one is against equality on any account, but giving equal opportunity to ineligible or compulsorily made eligible candidates that too at the cost of better qualified n eligible superseded offrs is organised betrayal to the mil service, org n nation. Further WOs of 2008 onward batches shud be considered for Comd appts as they will face same SB3.