The PESB has issued clarifications on its website regarding the 'job hopping' clause. This follows on the heels of four Directors on the board of subsidiary companies of Coal India Ltd failing to get shortlisted for the Bharat Coking Coal Limited (BCCL) CMD interview. Reportedly, they were not shortlisted because they did not complete two years tenure as Director in their companies and hence fell under the clause of 'job hopping'. The PESB had canceled the selection interview a week ahead of the scheduled date of 18 May 2017.
Recently, the PESB came up with a clarification that the holding company and all its subsidiaries will be treated as one company and the clause of 'job hopping' will be applied accordingly. It is now expected that those four Directors who could not be shortlisted earlier may be shortlisted and subsequently, four GMs, shortlisted earlier, would be out from the consideration list.
Indianmandarins had on May 16 reported first that the reasons for postponement are attributed to the new changes made into the norms for shortlisting of candidates, newly introduced categorization of 'cognate group' and criteria of internal and external candidates, and the clause of 'job hopping'.
Indianmandarins had also underlined that at least 04 directors could not be shortlisted due to the clauses related to 'job hopping' and the definition of internal and external candidates. We had also reported that a representation was made to the PESB by the stakeholders stating that the existing norms had eliminated four Director-level candidates and widened the scope for GM rank officials which could lead to a situation where GM rank officials would have had maximum chances to become CMD. The representation had argued that Director-level candidates serving in subsidiary companies of CIL could have been treated as internal candidates, thus widening the scope for Director-level candidates and ensuring a fair play for all.
Probably this anomalous situation would have underlined the need for fresh guidelines stating that the subsidiaries and holding companies of CIL would be treated as internal candidates.
Web-Link: Report dated 16 May 2017
Why did PESB cancel the selection interview for BCCL CMD?
https://www.indianmandarins.com/why-did-pesb-cancel-the-selection-interview-for-bccl-cmd/
Eligibility for CMD, BCCL: Fresh hope for 04 directors
By IndianMandarins - 2017-05-29 11:55:10
The PESB has issued clarifications on its website regarding the 'job hopping' clause. This follows on the heels of four Directors on the board of subsidiary companies of Coal India Ltd failing to get shortlisted for the Bharat Coking Coal Limited (BCCL) CMD interview. Reportedly, they were not shortlisted because they did not complete two years tenure as Director in their companies and hence fell under the clause of 'job hopping'. The PESB had canceled the selection interview a week ahead of the scheduled date of 18 May 2017.
Recently, the PESB came up with a clarification that the holding company and all its subsidiaries will be treated as one company and the clause of 'job hopping' will be applied accordingly. It is now expected that those four Directors who could not be shortlisted earlier may be shortlisted and subsequently, four GMs, shortlisted earlier, would be out from the consideration list.
Indianmandarins had on May 16 reported first that the reasons for postponement are attributed to the new changes made into the norms for shortlisting of candidates, newly introduced categorization of 'cognate group' and criteria of internal and external candidates, and the clause of 'job hopping'.
Indianmandarins had also underlined that at least 04 directors could not be shortlisted due to the clauses related to 'job hopping' and the definition of internal and external candidates. We had also reported that a representation was made to the PESB by the stakeholders stating that the existing norms had eliminated four Director-level candidates and widened the scope for GM rank officials which could lead to a situation where GM rank officials would have had maximum chances to become CMD. The representation had argued that Director-level candidates serving in subsidiary companies of CIL could have been treated as internal candidates, thus widening the scope for Director-level candidates and ensuring a fair play for all.
Probably this anomalous situation would have underlined the need for fresh guidelines stating that the subsidiaries and holding companies of CIL would be treated as internal candidates.
Web-Link: Report dated 16 May 2017
Why did PESB cancel the selection interview for BCCL CMD?
https://www.indianmandarins.com/why-did-pesb-cancel-the-selection-interview-for-bccl-cmd/
