Caught in the middle

Power of appointment and transfer being used to bend bureaucracy to political will

Caught in the middle

PUNCHING BAG: Despite his seniority, the Bengal Chief Secretary has been treated as a mere pawn in the Modi-Mamata tussle. PTI

Shyam Saran

Former Foreign Secretary and Senior Fellow, Centre for Policy Research

The bureaucracy once again finds itself in political crosshairs as a controversy has erupted over the unexpected transfer order issued by the Central government to the outgoing Chief Secretary of West Bengal, Alapan Bandyopadhyay. The officer was to retire on May 31, but the Union government had approved a three-month extension in service, just days before PM Modi visited the state for a survey of the cyclone-related damage last week. The Department of Personnel and Training, which handles matters relating to the civil services, gave no reason for its peremptory order to Bandyopadhyay to report to it on May 31 in Delhi. The department did not go through the procedure for the deputation of civil servants belonging to a state cadre to the Centre. There should have been a formal request to the state government for his deputation and the rules provide for the state to refuse. Only then may the Centre exercise its authority to insist on the implementation of its request. Despite his seniority, the West Bengal Chief Secretary has been treated as a mere pawn in the political and personal tussle between Modi and the West Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee.

There is a growing perception that the role and status of a civil servant have diminished under the Modi government.

Over the past several years, a sizeable number of civil servants in state cadres have refrained from seeking appointments in the Central government, preferring to stay in service at the state level. This is in sharp contrast to earlier years when postings at the Centre were much sought after. This may be due to a growing perception that the role and status of a professional civil servant have diminished under the Modi government.

The role of the civil service has been a controversial issue from the early years of our republic. In 1969, Indira Gandhi had called for a ‘committed civil service’. But the Constitution and service rules conceived a merit-based civil service, recruited through national competitive examinations and required to undergo professional training and advance through an evaluation process conducted within the respective service, that is, through the judgement of the senior echelons, as reflected in the Annual Confidential Reports (ACR). The political masters play no role in this evaluation process. Even the 360-degree evaluation process adopted for the All India Services in 2016 does not provide for a politician’s role, say, a minister, in assessing the quality of an officer.

The All India Services and other Central services are constitutionally protected as they are committed to uphold the Constitution. This has not prevented political interference in the functioning of the bureaucracy and the latter, too, has been complicit in this, but there have been, and continue to be, honourable exceptions. Political masters hold the power of appointment and transfer, and this has been used to bend the bureaucracy to political will. This is both at the Central and state levels. The growing politicisation of the bureaucracy is likely to continue under a political dispensation that appears to value loyalty and ideological affinity in its bureaucrats more than professional skills and experience. I have pointed out earlier that the role of the professional in government today is to validate a political preference rather than tender the best possible advice based on knowledge and experience. The governance gaps that have become so obvious in the mishandling of the second wave of the pandemic can be traced to this unfortunate predilection.

Despite dissatisfaction with the performance of the bureaucracy, whether among politicians or the general public, one has to accept that it is indispensable to the governance of a modern state. What are some of the modest ways in which an efficient and responsive, merit-based civil service may be nurtured?

One, recruitment rules must go back to limiting entry to the age group 21-24 and allowing repeated attempts only within this age limit. Currently, 32 years is the upper age limit in the general category and 35 years in the reserved category. The proper training of a civil servant and moulding his attitudes and skills to the requirements of present-day governance makes it important to ‘catch them young’. Recruiting persons much beyond this age limit brings in people who are already set in their ideas and temperament and find it hard to change their attitudes.

Two, post-retirement assignments should not be through political patronage and discretionary decisions of government. Let these positions, for example, appointments to statutory commissions, regulatory authorities and similar bodies, both at the Central and state levels, be an open recruitment process, inviting applications from all potentially qualified persons in accordance with well laid down criteria and selection through a body that has eminent non-government domain experts. Retired civil servants need not be excluded from applying but must compete with the rest. This removes the pressure on top civil servants to align themselves to political preferences of the government in office in anticipation of a well-paid post-retirement assignment and thus be inhibited in upholding public interest.

Three, change the system of rewards and penalties related to performance. The current system imposes penalties for acts of commission, no matter how minor. Acts of omission, which may lead to significant losses to the public exchequer or undermining of people’s welfare, mostly go unpunished. Rather than take decisions which may entail some risks, a civil servant may consider it more prudent to keep a file in orbit or to deflect decision-making to the senior or even political level. Even current rules will not punish a civil servant for taking a decision in good faith which turned out to be a mistake. No one can avoid making any mistakes and this must be acknowledged and accepted as part of a learning process. These are modest reforms, but they will help in reorienting our civil service in serving the country better. It is an unmatched pool of talent and experience which ought to be better used.

Top Stories

India logs 70K Covid cases, lowest since March 31, 3,921 deaths

India logs 70K Covid cases, lowest since March 31, 3,921 deaths

This is the seventh consecutive day when the country has rep...

Ram Temple land purchase: Cong seeks SC-monitored probe; temple trust rejects charges

Ram Temple land purchase: Cong seeks SC-monitored probe; temple trust rejects charges

All purchases and transactions in respect of the land are be...

Revolt in LJP, 5 MPs join hands to oust Chirag Paswan as party leader in Lok Sabha

Revolt in LJP, 5 MPs join hands to oust Chirag Paswan as party leader in Lok Sabha

Sources close to Chirag Paswan blame JD(U) for the split

UP journalist who sought protection against liquor mafia dies in road crash

UP journalist who sought protection against liquor mafia dies in road crash

The reporter, Sulabh Srivastava, recently ran a news story a...

Cities

View All