From Reel to Real Life, Challenges Faced by Women in Police Are Manifold

We are likely to be assessed less competent and less suitable for high level positions. We are likely to be sexually harassed by superiors and colleagues and held responsible for it.

Women in police. A recent phenomenon in a centuries old organisation with a colonial history and a strongly masculine work culture. It continues to be known as the police force. And being a force, it places a premium on machismo and valor more than on service.

Ask a child, how a police officer is. You are likely to hear some or all of these phrases: a prominent moustache, serious and grim expression, loud and coarse voice, tall and muscular, aggressive body language, one who doesn’t listen, but orders. A stereotypical image reinforced by popular media.

How many police officers fit this description? How many women in police fit this description? Can they? Should they? How are the women going to navigate through this system? And in turn, how would they be altering or modifying this system, if at all?

Women have the biological and sociological responsibility of bearing children. They also disproportionately shoulder the burden of the care economy, particularly in a traditional and patriarchal society like India. Their view of work, family and work-family balance is different from that of men.

The women in police, the few that there are, are either accused of hyper-masculinity, acting and behaving like their stereotypical male counterparts to prove themselves to be equally worthy; or of hyper-femininity, exaggerating the proverbial feminine weakness for short-term benefits.

These hypotheses must be tested in the context of the everyday lived realities of the women in uniform. This should be followed by an objective assessment of the extent to which the police force has attempted to understand and accommodate such realities.

A film on women police officers

To be able to look at things from the perspective of women in police, their stories need to be told. Just as the Netflix film Soni (2018) does. It takes us through the worldview of two women: Soni, a police sub-inspector and Kalpana, an officer of the Indian Police Service (IPS). While we see them at work and get an opportunity to contrast their working style with that of their male counterparts, we also get a peek into their personal lives.

How do they look at policing issues like crime, its prevention and investigation? What kind of relationship do women leaders in police have with a set of police officers who report to them? How do they strive to achieve the professional-personal life balance, the responsibility of which is also thrust upon them being women?

What kind of sexual harassment do they face from people inside and outside the police force? I have deliberately not called it ‘casual sexism’ or ‘teasing’ or ‘taunting’, as these terms would rob it of its gravity as an offense.

In Soni, like in real life, the women in police respond to sexual harassment typically by means of certain conditioned responses. By remaining silent, ignoring it, smiling, laughing it off or normalising it.

But are there any possible alternatives? Atypical responses to typical situations?

Soni, after whom the film is named, is transferred to a Dial 100 call centre as a “punishment posting”. She is the film’s angry young woman. One may argue that she has poor control over anger, using excessive force and refusing to mend her ways. While this has been an integral part of police sub-culture for centuries, it is seen in the film as an alternative response of a woman in police to sexual harassment that she faces while discharging her official duty. Breaking all stereotypes, she is fearless. She charges on the goons when they do not respond favourably to her bonafide orders. She even engages in a fist fight with three goons at once.

One scene strongly resonated with me: “He had occupied the ladies toilet, he was found consuming drugs and he was the one who misbehaved with me (read misbehaved as sexually harassed) and I am the one who is being asked questions.”

On one hand, this scene reflects the police’s victim blaming attitude, typically exhibited in cases of violence against women. On the other, it highlights that often in the eyes of the citizen, a woman police officer is first a woman and then a police officer.

How does this effect her personal life? It appears that her long working hours and the passion for her profession makes her partner insecure about their relationship. Despite constant nudging from an elderly female neighbour, Soni stays firm that she doesn’t need the crutches of the presence of a man in her life. At least not this one, who is unable to figure out what he wants from his own life. The man, on the other hand, is convinced that his presence in her life is necessary, for her safety and protection.

Kalpana’s tale

In contrast, the calm and young Kalpana smiles her way through the overt and covert harassment from her husband’s mother and sister over her late night shifts, not being present at family functions and not having a child. Her husband (also an IPS officer), is equally guilty of these. Yet, she is the only target.

In her profession, she is a meticulous follower of rules and procedures. She is an officer with high emotional intelligence. Remaining calm under situations of grave provocation, she is empathetic and a good listener who is highly motivated and self-aware. She is also sensitive, especially to victims of crime.

Her leadership style is people oriented. Though there are no right or wrong leadership styles, she is criticised and branded ‘too emotional’ by her husband, a service senior.

“You have chosen to be an IPS, behave like one. Four years into the service, do I need to tell you this?” he says. Despite her husband being critical of her personal engagement with subordinates, Kalpana has a meaningful relationship with Soni. They share passion, anger and frustration, though they express it differently.

The professional and personal lives of the husband and wife – engaged in the same service and the same state – are too intricately intertwined. Her every action at work comes to his knowledge. There is discussion. And the inevitable disagreement. They are different personalities and different officers. Is it fair that he expects Kalpana to be the officer that he is? As his wife, is she bound to take professional decisions from his perspective?

Feeling judged, snubbed, humiliated, she finally checks him, “Why are you raising your voice at me?” But she remains calm and persistent.

This character is nuanced and deep and the audience witnesses the resolve of this woman police officer become firmer with each passing scene. She is in the becoming, a police officer first, and then a woman. Her authentic self relies on her conviction, not merely on rules and procedures. It also evokes an alternative response to the sexism and misogyny she faces: courage, dedication and moral turpitude.

A Soni and Kalpana in each one of us

There is a Soni and a Kalpana in each one of us, the women in police. From reel to real life, challenges are multifarious. Once we remove our uniform, we are just another woman. As likely to face sexual harassment on the streets and in public transport. As likely as any other woman to be asked for dowry, subjected to domestic violence, to be the primary care givers and the lesser partners in marriage. To be expected to sacrifice career opportunities to make way for our partner’s career progression. And yet, highly likely to be harassed and judged professionally ‘non- serious’ or ‘non-ambitious’ for seeking maternity and childcare leave.

When in uniform, we are more likely to be discussed for our manner of walking, talking, laughing, dressing and marital status, rather than professional competence. We are likely to be complimented as ‘Well done boys!’. We are likely to be interrupted more often in meetings as compared to our male counterparts. Likely to be assessed less competent and considered less suitable for positions with a high level of responsibility and challenge. We are likely to be sexually harassed by superiors and colleagues and to be held responsible for it.

As women in police, do we stand by other women in police? Especially those in so called subordinate positions? Though cutting across hierarchy, we have certain experiences in common. Like Kalpana and Soni.

Taking another example from the film, a woman sub-inspector on duty at a Dial 100 Call Center  is responsible for receiving phone calls from complainants, recording the complaint and transferring it to the officer concerned for action. When faced with unwarranted and undesirable personal questions from a caller, she simply laughs it off. Scoffing, she says, every day one or two such people call. This is normalisation of sexual harassment.

Has there been a strong organisational response to this menace spread across all call centers? Despite civil as well as criminal legislation and evidence available in the form of call recordings, it continues. Leading to the vicious cycle of non-reporting and non-action, perpetuating the culture of silence.

For women in police to perform to their full potential, it would take sustained increase in their strength, meaningful networking within themselves and an institutionalised support system in the current social realities. Then, they will be the women that they are, the police officers that they are. It will allow them to be their authentic selves, agents of change. To achieve. To lead. To serve the people....Keep on Blogging....

(Alankrita Singh is an IPS officer of the Uttar Pradesh cadre. Views expressed are strictly personal and do not reflect the views of the service or the organisation she belongs to)

Source:- thewire.in 

Withering bureaucracy under PM Mr Narendra Modi ???

Dear readers, I am posting here an article published in an online version of The Week here with my comments at the end of this article. Readers are requested to offer their commenst.

    "when he assumed office, Prime Minister Narendra Modi hit the ground running with the clarion “Minimum Government, Maximum Governance.” He had primed himself to this during his high-octane election campaign. And within four days he set 10 ‘governance priorities’: (i) remove hurdles in economic growth and containing inflation, (ii) put education, energy and water on fast track, (iii) reform infrastructure sector for attracting investments and make India a global manufacturing hub, (iv) provide a proactive, people-oriented government and governance putting people at the centre of development process, (v) ensure time-bound implementation of policy, (vi) maintain consistency in policy, (vii) promote transparency by adopting e-auctioning in government tenders and works, (viii) improve inter-ministerial co-ordination and clubbing of ministries where needed, (ix) build confidence in the bureaucracy and (x) empower and provide freedom to the bureaucracy and incentive to innovate.

Given India’s administrative system, priorities 'ix' and 'x' would drive the entire exercise and the speed and sincerity with which these priorities were to be implemented depended on IAS bureaucrats occupying key positions in the Centre and the states and the innovative way they conceive and deliver governance. Question was whether the IAS is equipped—mentally and intellectually—to be independent and innovative. Originally it was a command oriented, revenue collecting administrative machinery which hardly called for any innovation.

Due to a process of evolution and democratic/developmental compulsions, it has been under pressure to become an instrument of participatory, flexible, multi-sectored public service, spanning government, corporate and civil society. And this new concept of public service is characterised by change and dynamism more than status quo and constancy. But IAS had not responded to this ‘change and dynamism’ at the cutting-edge of administration where it was most needed. Modi was expected to remedy this and help civil servants to reinvent themselves to become a fearless, independent, honest and efficient entity.

On this Nripendra Misra, principal secretary to the prime minister brought some hope when he stated, “Mr. Modi does three things: he guarantees stability in tenure for as many as four to five years for competent officers, offers tremendous freedom to innovate and deliver, and takes personal ownership of all decisions.”

But in the last three years, decision-making has become individualistic, politics polarised, and governance straitjacketed with civil services reverting back to command-oriented culture. Despite cacophony of slogans and noises, reforms have not touched civil services and basic governance. Only two things seem to have happened—the strange apparition of IAS probationers starting their field training from the top (assistant secretaries to Government of India at Delhi instead of assistant commissioner/collector in a far-off district) and steeply reducing the role of IAS at the decision-making level of joint secretaries in Central government departments and replacing them with personnel from other services.

For the first time, over 30 per cent of joint secretaries in Central government are from services outside IAS. It is getting worse as would be seen from the recent appointment of joint secretaries. Out of 21 officers, only seven (one-third) are from IAS and the rest are from Indian Foreign Service (IFS), Indian Revenue Service (IRS) and other Central Services. Another disturbing trend is that several IAS joint secretaries have sought and obtained premature repatriation to their respective state cadres and very few empanelled IAS officers are seeking deputation to the Centre.

Equally disturbing is the empanelment of secretaries wherein even the limited practices and conventions evolved over a period of time to reduce arbitrariness was thrown to the wind and there was complete overhaul of the way assessments were made. This led to almost 35 per cent of the officers, who were due to be empanelled, being left out for no rhyme or reason. The new process was supposed to be merit-based with the confidential report (CR) dossier being loaded with diverse inputs drawn from a variety of sources. No one knows what these inputs were. There are no explanations as to why some people have been left out or what criteria have been followed, what kind of inputs were obtained to make the assessment or where they were obtained from. There was also no redress for an officer who felt unfairly treated. Introducing such uncertainty in career advancement at the end of a career is not just inexplicable, it is whimsical and arbitrary in the extreme.

To quote Amitabha Pande, a former civil servant: “For the bureaucracy, a clear statement is being made. The authority of the prime minister and the prime minister's office (PMO) is absolute and no one else matters. The sphere of a minister and a secretary is that which the PMO decides, and while suggestions and initiatives are welcome, such initiatives will be subject to the close watch of Big Brother. Access to the top will be filtered through the chosen few and decisions taken by the chosen few may or may not be based on prior consultation. Officers will have to live with uncertainty regarding their future, which could be bright if they read the signals right but bleak if they get it wrong.”

All these seem to be part of an orchestrated move to ease-out the IAS from the Central government and bring in ‘experts with domain knowledge’. In their support, proponents of this move are quoting the observations of Chairman of the Seventh Pay Commission Justice A.K. Mathur and its Member Rathin Roy: “Senior management and administrative positions in government have evolved considerably and are growing more technical, requiring specific domain knowledge.”

But they need to answer one moot question: In the Indian context what is the needed ‘domain expertise’ for those who run the government? Is it corporate-pandering and pushing predatory ‘development’ models thrust by rich ‘movers and shakers’? Or is it basic grassroots governance delivered through effective and just governments that could uplift the miserable millions. If it is the former, the IAS is certainly dispensable. Not so, if it is the latter.

Due to the herculean efforts put in by Sardar Vallabbhai Patel, IAS was established to "give a fair and just administration to the country and manage it on an even keel". The expectation was that the liberal educational background and sharp intellect of the IAS entrants, valuable village/grassroots experience they gain, their wide contacts with the public and political leadership right from the stage of their first posting, and their variegated exposure in different assignments will be a boon for people-centered policy making, conceiving and designing development-cum-welfare projects/programmes and their effective and expeditious implementation. None of these except the education and intellect can be claimed by the members of the Central Services who begin and end their careers in cities and towns with hardly any contact with the people or their elected representatives. They have no grassroots experience and can be manipulated by carpetbaggers!

By promoting this governance model, Modi is erasing what his icon Sardar Patel built. This has brought in a sense of foreboding in the bureaucracy and civil servants are no longer sure of themselves. In pursuit of personal hegemony and corporate agenda India’s most potent instrument of governance—civil services—is being run to the ground. This does not augur well for the country’s future."

Source:-http://www.theweek.in/news/india/narendra-modi-withering-bureaucracy.html(Writer is former Army & IAS officer)

Neutralviews:-  The writer of this blog differs from the opinion of  the above views by ex Army & IAS officer. He may have expressed the opinion as an IAS officer but the time and reality has changed. It is the failure of IAS which led this country to such a situation. Had they been completely meritorious, fearless, non -corrupt and impartial, things would have been different. There have been several examples where huge corruption related allegations have been made and proved against IAS officers.There have been incidences where even senior IAS officers found acting in partial manner. They are even crawling in-front of petty politicians just to manage their plum postings. Therefore, blaming PM for withering IAS and promoting other services officers and lateral entry at Joint Secretary level is not correct. UPSC conducts  single exam to recruit for various Grp A positions. At the time of recruitment, every body is equal having difference of marks ranging from 1 to 100. Subsequently, it is IAS who created a partial system to not to give enough exposures to other services except them-self. Had Central Services officers been given enough exposure to all types of administrative wings, this logic of specialization would not have arrived. Therefore, in the era of globalization and digital economic world where physical boundaries have lost their relevance, merit only should be the criteria for administrative positions be it private or government. Mr Nilekani did wonderful thing being head of UIDA. The specialist organisation like ISRO did wonders. This is the right time that IAS hegemony should be removed and everyone with proven merit should be given opportunity to work in the progressive march of this great nation....keep on blogging..    

IAS cadres should not monopolise top posts..An interesting writeup by Mr Shashi Tharoor

The Seventh Pay Commission has recommended parity between the elite IAS (Indian Administrative Service) and the 36 other central services, setting the cat among the bureaucratic pigeons.
The IAS has long enjoyed a two-year “edge” over the others, as the service joined mainly by those who score higher in the UPSC examinations that govern entry into government service. The IAS also enjoys quicker promotions and dominance (but not monopoly) of the top positions in the bureaucracy. The other services have long bridled at this disparity, and the Pay Commission award has been welcomed by them with great enthusiasm — and equally vehemently opposed by the IAS.
The debate has spilled into the public space, with battle-lines being quickly drawn in social media. The key issue appears to be — should better grades in a one-office exam in your mid-20s guarantee an edge in postings, promotions and salaries even in your 40s and 50s?
The IAS officers argue that it should — not just because they are an elite, but because their normal career progression gives them broader experience of the challenges of Indian administration, from district level “Collector” duties to ministries in state capitals and eventually in New Delhi. IAS officers, they argue, develop decision-making and crisis management skills on the job that are invaluable as they rise to the top and cannot be matched by officers in other services.
This is highly contestable. Is an IAS officer necessarily more experienced in handling crises than, say, a police officer from the IPS who has quelled riots, or a railway official who has dealt with the complexities of the world’s largest railway system? What does giving the “edge” achieve for the government in terms of morale and service delivery? Should a lifelong advantage be given on the basis of marks in an entrance exam without any reference to continued performance and further acquisition of relevant skills?
An alternative model of the civil service would recognize the value of different services but would link rank and reward to positions, not to individuals. So every government official would be eligible to apply for every position that his or her experience and ability qualified him or her for. The rank and salary would be linked to the position. If a smart, creative and quick-thinking IPS cop was a more impressive applicant for a position of Joint Secretary in the Home Affairs ministry, he or she would not necessarily lose out in selection to a less competent officer who happens to be from the IAS.
This approach would keep those who fell short in the UPSC examinations still keen on improving their performance to demonstrate their capabilities. It would end complacency amongst IAS officers who currently feel they will get the plum positions if they just serve long enough and acquire the seniority that keeps accruing to them, thanks to their “edge”.
And it will recognize the essential principle that position and authority should be a reward for performance, for continued self-improvement and demonstrated expertise, rather than flow inevitably from success in a one-off examination.
The “political” appointments in government already recognize this by allowing Ministers to appoint Private Secretaries (PS) and Officers on Special Duty (OSD) from any service. In my last position at the Ministry of Human Resource Development, I had a PS from the IPS and an OSD who was a Customs&Excise official, both of whom served with me and then returned to their parent services. They brought their different backgrounds and experience to the work and showed the skill, talent and professional abilities that their jobs required. I could not have expected better from IAS officers.
A country with the diversity and wide-ranging challenges that India offers cannot be the fiefdom of any small group, however elite. We need to be able to draw on the best in government, whatever initials they sport after their names.
The top posts in India cannot be the monopoly of the IAS. It is bad for the government and bad for the wider public interest....Keep on Blogging....
The writer is a member of Parliament from Thiruvananthapuram.
Source:- http://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-ias-cadres-should-not-monopolise-top-posts-2148199#

Sign of Changing time?...An era of Parity among Civil Services?

 Hello All,I am sharing a news article which may be a new begining towards most discussed topic now a days i.e. Parity among Civil Services:-
"Senior IAS officers working in Andhra Pradesh are fuming over handing over of key posts to juniors ever since the TDP stormed into power last year. Recalling that a similar 'experiment' in Uttar Pradesh by the then chief minister Mayawati had cost her dear, senior officers in AP argue that doling out key posts to non-IAS officers is against all established norms and service rules. 

Mayawati had shunted out most of the senior IAS officers to insignificant posts and handed over senior cadre posts to junior officers. This had created a furore in the administration forcing the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) to intervene. Some of the UP officers had even knocked the doors of the administrative tribunal on the 'ill-treatment' by Mayawati government. 

"A similar situation now exists in AP. Many senior officers were relegated to minor departments like tribal welfare, youth services, sports and environment. Whereas officers who joined recently have been elevated to senior cadre posts and given plum posts in corporations," pointed a senior IAS officer on condition of anonymity. 

Take for example, special chief secretary cadre officers AK Parida and LV Subramanyam. While Parida is holding environment and forests, Subramanyam is left with youth services. Another senior officer Vidya Sagar continues in the tribal welfare department and Giridhar, who left the CMO recently, was posted in AP Public Service Commission as its secretary. Nilam Sawhney was given women and child welfare and another special chief secretary cadre officer Dinesh Kumar is waiting for posting for the last one month. 

The administration has received a serious blow as junior officers including non-IAS cadre are occupying important chairs. After Chandrababu Naidu became the CM, about a dozen non-IAS officers have landed in Hyderabad in the name of inter-state deputation. Top of it, they were given plum posts pushing senior officers to unimportant positions, senior officials argue. 

"The state government does not have any control over the officer who came to the state under inter-state deputation. If he fails in his duty, the state government can't take any action but to surrender him to the parent department. This service rule is working as a shield for non-IAS officers who are queuing up to the state. But what about accountability in administration?" pointed out a senior IAS officer. 

Officers from the Indian Revenue Service (IRS) are thronging to AP by obtaining inter-state deputation. After getting the deputation, they are lobbying for plum posts through different channels. Several IRS officers have got good postings much to the displeasure of senior officers. Indian Railway traffic service officer K Sambasiva Rao was posted as the MD of infrastructure corporation, while IRS officer P Venkaiah Chowdary was posted as the MD of AP Mineral Development Corporation. Anther IRS officer Ch Gopinath was posted as the MD of Medical Infrastructure Corporation. Phani Kumar was given information technology department and Sandhya Rani from Indian Postal Service became the commissioner of school education department. 

Another Indian Postal Service officer M Venkateswarlu was posted as MD of Bhogapuram International Airport Development Authority. IRS officers P Naresh, J Krishna Kishore and M Rama Rao were also given key assignments. 

"The TDP government is slowly pushing out senior IAS officers from key departments. Never before so many non-IAS officers have joined the state administration and were handed over plum posts," pointed another IAS officer. Senior officers are now planning to complain on this anomaly to the chief secretary and DoPT."....keep on Blogging..
SOURCE:- The Times of India(Hyderabad Edition)

Are all IAS/IPS are corrupt?....Reply to Mr Batman

Mr/Miss Batman:- Hi sir, This query of me is quite straightforward and maybe difficult to answer. You can choose not to answer this. Many IAS and IPS officers earn plethora of black money ranging in several hundred crores but what do they do with this kind of money. Of course they can not flaunt this in public and cannot use it legally so logically what is the reason for this kind of corruptions and taking huge risks and betraying the nation and its people. As they cannot taste this money is it passed over generations? It is also highly unlikely? Please enlighten because I am not able to come over any conclusion. Thanks, Regards by batman.

Manmauji:- Hello Mr/Miss Batman, thanks for your visit on the Blog..Regarding your query, I can only say that you can't generalize and paint every one who is a part of IAS/IPS to be corrupt. There are exceptions in every sphere of life. There are several examples of officers who earned good name and fame by their hard work only. Sometime, it happens that one formed his/her view just on hearsay without any basis of facts and figures. This should be avoided.
        Besides, it is my opinion that the incidence of corruption in the administration are not one sided. Some where common man is also responsible. Now in the age of IT and other advancements, one should be properly informed and educated. If it happens, officers will never dare to ask illegal favours. Educated and informed citizenery will eradicate this menace from our society, I am quite sure about it.....Keep on Blogging.. 

Why so much bias?...Reply to Miss/Mr Anonymous

Anonymous:- One year completed but sstill there is no reply or response from mr manmoji..no help no guidance and nothing..now i completed ma graduation n waited for response..this is bias bcoz others are getting response.

Manmauji:- Hello Miss/Mr Anonymous,thanks for your visit on the Blog.. I am extremely sorry for not updating the Blog for long due to paucity [Lethargy more accurately] of time or change in some priority. It will be great if you can specify your queries to answer on..Keep on Blogging...

One year completed but sstill there is no reply or response from mr manmoji..no help no guidance and nothing..now i completed ma graduation n waited for response..this is bias bcoz others are getting response..

Copy the BEST Traders and Make Money : http://bit.ly/fxzulu

One year completed but sstill there is no reply or response from mr manmoji..no help no guidance and nothing..now i completed ma graduation n waited for response..this is bias bcoz others are getting response..

Copy the BEST Traders and Make Money : http://bit.ly/fxzulu

Central Staffing Scheme - A Flawed Mode of Recruitment...must read by all Group A officers...

The Central Staffing Scheme (CSS) has been in operation for more than 50 years in India. This Scheme provides a systematic arrangement for the selection and appointment of officers to senior administrative posts in the Government of India.  It is one of the modes through which appointments to the posts of the rank of Under Secretary and above in the Government of India are made.  Before analyzing the Central Staffing Scheme, it is imperative on my part to briefly discuss about the administrative structure of the Government of India and the various modes of recruitment of personnel to man the posts/offices under it.

Administrative Structure of the Government of India: 

The constitutional head of the Executive of the Union of India is the President. Article 74(1) of the Constitution provides that there shall be a Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister as its head to aid and advice the President, who shall exercise his/her functions in accordance with the said advice. The real executive power is thus vested in the Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister as its head.  The Government of India is divided into various Ministries and Departments. The work of the Government of India is distributed among the various Ministries and Departments by the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules 1961. For convenient transaction of this business of the Government of India, the Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1961 were passed. The Cabinet Secretariat is responsible for the administration of both these Rules facilitating smooth transaction of business in Ministries/Departments of the Government of India by ensuring adherence to these Rules. The Cabinet Secretariat is under the direct charge of the Prime Minister. The administrative head of the Secretariat is the Cabinet Secretary.  The Cabinet Secretary is the senior-most civil servant and also the head of the Indian Civil Service.  The Cabinet Secretary is mandatorily drawn from the Indian Administrative Service (IAS).  The Transaction of Business Rules provided for the constitution of Standing Committees of the Cabinet for performing certain functions of the Government of India. These Standing Committees contain such Ministers as the Prime Minister may, from time to time, specify. The Appointments Committee of Cabinet is one such Standing Committee, which is responsible for taking various decisions like appointments, empanelments, extension of tenures, transfers, re-employment of officers, etc. of certain categories and rank/pay.

The work of the Government of India is distributed into different Ministries/Departments.  A Department is responsible for formulation of policies of the government in relation to business allotted to it and also for the execution and review of those policies.  For efficient disposal of business allotted to it, a Department is divided into administrative units called Wings, Divisions, Branches and Sections. The functions of the various functionaries of a Department may be summarized as follows:

S.No.	Administrative Unit	Administrative Head	Functions
1	Department	Secretary	A Secretary is the administrative head of the Ministry or Department.  He is the principal adviser of the Minister on all matters of policy and administration within his Ministry/Department.
2	Wing	Special Secretary/ Additional Secretary/ Joint Secretary	When the volume of work in a Ministry exceeds the manageable charge of a Secretary, one or more wings may be established with Special Secretary /Additional Secretary/Joint Secretary, incharge of each wing. Such a functionary is entrusted with the maximum measure of independent functioning and responsibility in respect of all business falling within his wing subject.
3	Division	Director/ Deputy Secretary	Director/Deputy Secretary is an officer who acts on behalf of the Secretary. He holds charge of a Secretariat Division and is responsible for the disposal of Government business dealt within the Division under his charge. He should ordinarily be able to dispose of the majority of cases coming up to him on his own.
4	Branch	Under Secretary	An Under Secretary is incharge of the Branch in a Ministry consisting of two or more Sections and in respect thereto exercises control both in regard to the despatch of business and maintenance of discipline. Work comes to him from the Sections under his charge. As Branch Officer he disposes of as many cases as possible at his own level but he takes the orders of the Deputy Secretary or higher officers on important cases.
5	Section	Section Officer	A section is generally the lowest organizational unit in a Department with a well-defined area of work. It normally consists of Assistants and Clerks supervised by a Section Officer. Initial handling of cases (including noting and drafting) is generally done by Assistants and Clerks who are also known as the dealing hands.

Each Department may have one or more Attached or Subordinate Offices. Where the execution of the policies of the government requires decentralization of executive action and/or direction, a Department may have under it executive agencies called ‘Attached’ and ‘Subordinate’ offices. Attached Offices are generally responsible for providing executive direction required in the implementation of the policies laid down by the Department to which they are attached. They also serve as repository of technical information and advise the department on technical aspects. For instance, the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) is an attached office of the Department of Commerce. Subordinate Offices generally function as field establishments or as agencies responsible for the detailed execution of the policies of the government. They function under the direction of an Attached Office, or where the volume of executive direction involved is not considerable, directly under a Department. In the latter case, they assist the Departments concerned in handling technical matters in their respective fields of specialization. Besides, the attached and subordinate offices there are a large number of other organizations under the Government of India, which carry out different functions assigned to them. These may be categorized as follows:

1)      Constitutional Bodies: Such bodies which are constituted under the provisions of the Constitution of India.  Eg: CAG, Election Commission of India, etc.

2)      Statutory Bodies: Such bodies which are established under the statute or an Act of Parliament. Eg: RBI, SEBI, IRDA, FMS, PFRDA, etc.

3)      Autonomous Bodies: Such bodies which are established by the Government to discharge the activities which are related to governmental functions. Although such bodies are given autonomy to discharge their functions in accordance with the Memorandum of Associations etc., but the Government’s control exists since these are funded by the Government of India. Eg: National Productivity Council (NPC), Indian Institute of Foreign Trade (IIFT), etc.

4)      Public Sector Undertakings: Public Sector Undertaking is that part of the industry which is controlled fully or partly by the Government. These undertakings have been set up in the form of companies or corporations in which the shares are held by the President or his nominees and which are managed by Board of Directors which includes officials and non-officials. Eg: Air India, BSNL, FCI, etc.

Recruitment of Personnel:

The personnel manning the various posts under the Government of India are recruited through various modes.  These modes can be summarized as follows:

1)      Central Staffing Scheme – It provides a systematic arrangement for the selection and appointment of officers to senior administrative posts in the Central Government, excluding the posts which are specifically encadred with the organized Group ‘A’ services or filled by recruitment through the UPSC.  Appointments to all other posts of the rank of Under Secretary and above in the Government of India are filled under the Central Staffing Scheme by borrowing officers from the All India Services and participating Group ‘A’ services.  All officers who are so borrowed will serve the Government of India for a stipulated tenure on deputation and thereafter return to their parent cadre.  Their growth, development and career prospects will be mainly in their own Service.  The raison d’être of such a scheme is the Centre’s need for fresh inputs at senior levels in policy planning, formulation of policy and implementation of programmes from diverse sources viz. the All India Services and the participating organized Group ‘A’ services.  The services of scientific and technical personnel and professionals in the field of economics, statistics, law and medicine are similarly obtained, whereby they serve for specified periods on deputation and return to their respective cadres at the end of the tenure.  This two-way movement is of mutual benefit to the service cadres and the Government of India.  The bulk of the posts under the Government of India in the Central Secretariat are filled through the Central Staffing Scheme. 

2)      Recruitment through UPSC – Some posts under the Central Government are filled by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) directly. 

3)      Posts Encadred to Specialized Group ‘A’ Services – Some posts in the Union Government are specifically encadred to the specialized Group ‘A’ Services.  These posts are to be filled only by officers belonging to that particular Service. For instance, the Foreign Secretary is always an IFS officer, the Chairman and Members of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) are IRS officers, the Chairman and Members of the Railway Board are to be drawn from railway services like IRTS, IRAS, IRPS, IRSME, IRSEE, IRSE; Secretary (Posts) is always an IPoS officer, the Directors of CBI, IB and R&AW are IPS officers, etc. 

4)      Posts Encadred to Central Secretariat Service – Some posts of Director, Deputy Secretary and Under Secretary are encadred to the Central Secretariat Service.  These posts are filled only by the Central Secretariat Service officers in accordance with the rules of the Central Staffing Scheme but stand outside the Central Staffing Scheme.

5)      Foreign Service Appointments – Appointment of members of Indian Foreign Service to posts included in the Foreign Service Cadre are made on the recommendations of the Foreign Service Board comprising IFS Officers.

6)      Appointments by Railway Board – Appointment to posts under the control of the Ministry of Railways are made on the advice of the Railway Board.

7)      Services Selection Board Procedure – Appointments to posts under the control of the Ministry of Defence other than civil posts are made on the advice of the Services Selection Board or other specified authorities.

8)      Statutory Appointments by the President of India – Statutory appointments to be made by the President of India will be in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.

9)      Appointments of Ambassadors, High Commissioners, Heads of Missions or High Dignitaries under the aegis of the Ministry of External Affairs will be as per the prescribed procedure.

Central Staffing Scheme:

            The idea behind the Central Staffing Scheme is the Central Government’s need for fresh inputs at middle/senior levels in the formulation of policy and implementation/monitoring of various programmes.  The officers are drawn from diverse sources for a specified period on deputation.  This two-way movement is of mutual benefit to the service cadres and the Government of India.  A total of 37 Services are included in the Central Staffing Scheme.  An attempt has been made here to study and find out whether the Central Staffing Scheme is working on the lines planned and whether the Central Government and thereby the country is benefitting from this Scheme of personnel administration.

            The complete lists of Secretaries, Special Secretaries, Secretary Equivalents, Additional Secretaries, Additional Secretary Equivalents, Joint Secretaries and Joint Secretary Equivalents to the Government of India that were available on the website of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions were critically analyzed.  The following disturbing inferences were drawn:

1.   The list of Secretaries, Special Secretaries & Secretary Equivalents (as on 12/02/2014) that is available on the website of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions contained names of 128 officers belonging to various Services. These posts carry the basic pay of Rs.80,000 (fixed) (Apex Scale). The Services represented along with the number of officers in these Secretary level appointments are summarized below:

S.No.	Name of the Service	Number of Officers from the Service Represented	Percentage of Posts Occupied by Officers belonging to the Service
1	Indian Administrative Service (IAS)	95	74.22%
2	Indian Police Service (IPS)	11	8.59%
3	Scientists	8	6.25%
4	Indian Legal Service (ILS)	4	3.13%
5	Economists	3	2.34%
6	Indian Foreign Service (IFS)	2	1.56%
7	Indian Forest Service (IFoS)	1	0.78%
8	Indian Defence Accounts Service (IDAS)	1	0.78%
9	Indian Information Service (IIS)	1	0.78%
10	Doctors	1	0.78%
11	Indian Postal Service (IPoS)	1	0.78%
Total		128	100%

It is to be noted that the Indian Legal Service (ILS), Scientists, Economists & Doctors mentioned in the above table are not among the 37 Services eligible to be considered under the Central Staffing Scheme.  So, only 7 Services out of 37 eligible Services are actually represented at the Secretary level appointments in the Government of India.  Services with large cadres like Indian Revenue Service (with cadre strength as large as that of IAS) were not represented at all.  The one Secretary level post occupied by the IPoS is that of Secretary(Posts), which is an encadred post of the IPoS.  The one Secretary level post occupied by the IDAS is that of Secretary(Defence Finance), which is an encadred post of the IDAS.  The one Secretary level post occupied by the IIS is that of the Secretary to the President of India, which occurs rarely.  The one Secretary level post occupied by the IFoS is that of Director General of Forests and Special Secretary, which is again an encadred post of IFoS.  10 out of the 11 Secretary level posts occupied by the IPS are those encadred to IPS.  So, in effect, only 3 Services out of 37 eligible Services (i.e. only 8.11% of the eligible Services) are represented at the Secretary level posts filled through the Central Staffing Scheme.  Even out of these 3 Services, IFS occupied only 2 posts and IPS only 1 post at the Secretary level, which are not encadred to them.  The 2 posts occupied by IFS are those of Secretary to the Vice-President of India and the Deputy National Security Adviser, which can also be considered as occurring rarely.  So, all most all the Secretary level posts filled under the Central Staffing Scheme are occupied by IAS officers.

2.         The list of Additional Secretaries & Additional Secretary Equivalents that is available on the website of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions contained names of 118 officers belonging to various Services. These posts carry the pay scale of Rs.67,000-(annual increment @ 3%) – 79,000 (HAG Scale) or Rs.75,500-(annual increment @ 3%) – 80,000 (HAG+ Scale).  The Services represented along with the number of officers in these Additional Secretary level appointments are summarized below:

S.No.	Name of the Service	Number of Officers from the Service Represented	Percentage of Posts Occupied by Officers belonging to the Service
1	Indian Administrative Service (IAS)	104	88.14%
2	Indian Audit & Accounts Service (IAAS)	4	3.39%
3	Indian Defence Accounts Service (IDAS)	4	3.39%
4	Indian Police Service (IPS)	2	1.69%
5	Indian Forest Service (IFoS)	1	0.85%
6	Indian Revenue Service (C&CE)	1	0.85%
7	Indian P&T Accounts & Finance Service (IPTAFS)	1	0.85%
8	Indian Cost Accounts Service	1	0.85%
Total		118	100%

The 2 posts occupied by IPS are those of Additional Directors of CBI, which are the cadre posts of IPS.  Services with large cadres like Indian Revenue Service (IT) (with cadre strength as large as that of IAS) were not represented at all at the Additional Secretary level posts under the Government of India.  So, in effect, only 7 Services out of 37 eligible Services (i.e. only 18.92% of the eligible Services) are represented at the Additional Secretary level posts filled through the Central Staffing Scheme.  Here also almost all the posts are cornered by the IAS.  The invasion by the IAS at this level is more pronounced than that at the Secretary level appointments.

3.         The list of Joint Secretaries & Joint Secretary Equivalent officers that is available on the website of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions contained names of 535 officers belonging to various Services. These posts carry the pay scale of Rs.37,400-67,000 with Grade Pay of Rs.10,000 (SAG Scale).  The Services represented along with the number of officers in these Joint Secretary level appointments are summarized below:

S.No.	Name of the Service	Number of Officers from the Service Represented	Percentage of Posts Occupied by Officers belonging to the Service
1	Indian Administrative Service (IAS)	345	64.49%
2	Indian Police Service (IPS)	33	6.17%
3	Indian Forest Service (IFoS)	24	4.49%
4	Indian Defence Accounts Service (IDAS)	24	4.49%
5	Indian Audit & Accounts Service (IAAS)	23	4.30%
6	Central Secretariat Service (CSS)	15	2.80%
7	Indian Revenue Service (IT)	10	1.87%
8	Indian Postal Service (IPoS)	9	1.68%
9	Indian Information Service (IIS)	7	1.31%
10	Indian Railway Personnel Service (IRPS)	7	1.31%
11	Indian Foreign Service (IFS)	7	1.31%
12	Indian Economic Service (IES)	5	0.93%
13	Indian Railway Accounts Service (IRAS)	5	0.93%
14	Indian Civil Accounts Service (ICAS)	5	0.93%
15	Indian Revenue Service (C&CE)	4	0.75%
16	Indian Railway Service of Electrical Engineers (IRSEE)	3	0.56%
17	Indian Ordnance Factory Service (IOFS)	2	0.37%
18	Indian Defence Estates Service (IDES)	2	0.37%
19	Indian P&T Accounts & Finance Service (IPTAFS)	1	0.19%
20	Indian Railway Traffic Service (IRTS)	1	0.19%
21	Indian Trade Service (ITS)	1	0.19%
22	Indian Telecom Service	1	0.19%
23	Indian Railway Service of Engineers (IRSE)	1	0.19%
Total		535	100%

Even at the Joint Secretary level appointments, IAS officers occupied the bulk of the posts.  The 15 posts occupied by the Central Secretariat Service are their cadre posts and the Central Secretariat Service is not included in the 37 eligible Services for the Central Staffing Scheme. Therefore, as can be seen from the above table, only 22 Services out of 37 eligible Services (i.e. only 59.46% of the eligible Services) are represented at the Joint Secretary level posts filled through the Central Staffing Scheme.

            It can be seen from the above observations that the Central Staffing Scheme had not achieved the objectives set out for it in the first place.  Only one Service i.e. the IAS has been occupying bulk of the posts filled through this Scheme and only very few Services are being represented in the Central Staffing Scheme posts.  The very idea behind the Scheme of attracting fresh inputs at middle/senior levels in the formulation of policy from diverse sources has been defeated completely.  The cardinal principle of the Central Staffing Scheme is that all officers who are borrowed will serve the Government of India for a stipulated tenure on deputation and thereafter return back to the parent cadre.  The growth, development and career prospects of these officers will mainly be in their own Service.  But the working of this Scheme reveals that the growth, development and career prospects of IAS officers are being furthered by the Central Staffing Scheme at the cost and to the detriment of the other Services and the country in general.  The Central Staffing Scheme is promoting caste system in bureaucracy by promoting one caste (read IAS) over other castes (read Services). The caste system has no place in a modern society. An attempt is made here to identify the real reasons behind the failure of this grand Scheme and the remedies needed urgently for the Central Secretariat to function with efficiency and fairness. 
 

Reasons for Failure of the Central Staffing Scheme:

1.         Flawed Process of Empanelment:

It has been the practice to draw a suitability list (known as panel) of eligible officers from the All-India Services and Group ‘A’ Services participating in the Central Staffing Scheme.  This process is known as ‘empanelment’.  This suitability list/panel will be utilized for making appointments to posts under the Government of India.  However, inclusion in the panel would not confer any right to such appointment under the Central Government.  It has been observed that this very process of empanelment is the biggest hurdle for non-IAS officers to get appointments under the Central Staffing Scheme. The empanelment process has become so skewed that it automatically eliminates the vast majority of the non-IAS officers from the Central Staffing Scheme at the level of Joint Secretary and above.

For the purpose of empanelment, an Expert Panel will examine the APARs/ACRs, year-wise in detail, for each batch and will give their own assessment of the gradings of officers for each year.   This assessment will be taken into account by the Civil Services Board (CSB) for making recommendations for officers to be included in a Panel.  The final approval will be obtained from the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) for empanelment of officers of All India Services and Organized Group ‘A’ Central Services for holding Secretariat posts at the level of Joint Secretary, Additional Secretary and Secretary in the Central Government.  The ACC will be assisted and advised by the Civil Services Board.  So, in effect the Civil Services Board is the actual body responsible for preparing the Panels.  The composition of the Civil Services Board is as follows:

S.No.	Official	Designation	Service(s) from which the official is drawn
1	Cabinet Secretary	Chairman (ex-officio)	IAS
2	Secretary (Personnel)	Member (ex-officio)	IAS
3	One Secretary to the Government of India (to be appointed for a year at a time)	Member	IAS in 90% of the cases
4	Establishment Officer	Member-Secretary (ex-officio)	IAS
5	Secretary of the Administrative Ministry or Department concerned	Co-opted Member	IAS in 90% of the cases

From the above table, simple mathematics will reveal that in 96% of the cases all the five Members of the Civil Services Board are IAS officers and the principles of probability reveal that in less than 4% of the cases there is a probability of atleast 2 out of the 5 Members will be non-IAS Members.  Even under this 4% probability, the majority of the Civil Services Board is comprised of IAS officers.  This very composition of the CSB dominated by IAS officers is the real reason for empanelment of IAS officers on a large scale and elimination of non-IAS officers.  Let us see whether this observation is correct.  An analysis of the officers of the All India and organized Group ‘A’ Central Services who are empanelled to the posts of Secretary, Additional Secretary and Joint Secretary under the Central Staffing Scheme reveals the following:

(I) Secretary, Special Secretary & Secretary Equivalent:

S.No.	Name of the Service	Junior-most Batch Empanelled for appointment to Secretary, Special Secretary & Secretary Equivalent at the Centre	Number of Officers of the Junior-most Batch Empanelled	Whether any Officer belonging to the Service was actually holding any post that is not encadred to his/her Service
1	Indian Administrative Service (IAS)	1980	36	Yes
2	Indian Revenue Service (IT)	1977	1	No
3	Indian Forest Service (IFoS)	1977	1	No
4	Indian Railway Accounts Service (IRAS)	1977	1	No
5	Indian Postal Service (IPoS)	1977	1	No
6	Indian Economic Service (IES)	1976	1	No
7	Indian Revenue Service (C&CE)	1976	1	No

It is observed that over the last 5 years only officers belonging to 7 Services have been empanelled for Secretary & Secretary Equivalent posts under the Central Staffing Scheme.  It is also significant that over the past 5 years only around 25 non-IAS officers (from a group of 36 Services) were empanelled for Secretary & Secretary Equivalent posts but around 200 IAS officers (from a single Service) were empanelled during the same period. The junior most batch of IAS empanelled for Secretary & Secretary Equivalent posts is that of 1980 whereas the 1976 & 1977 batches are the junior most from the other Services to be empanelled at this level.  What is significant is that none of the officers belonging to the non-IAS from the latest batch to be empanelled was actually appointed to any post of Secretary & Secretary Equivalent other than to the encadred posts.  Even officially, a 2-year difference is maintained between IAS and non-IAS officers while empanelling for appointment to the posts of Secretary and Additional Secretary/Equivalent at the centre.  God only knows why this discrimination even at official level. 

(II) Additional Secretary & Additional Secretary Equivalent:

S.No.	Name of the Service	Junior-most Batch Empanelled for appointment to Additional Secretary & Additional Secretary Equivalent at the Centre	Number of Officers of the Junior-most Batch Empanelled	Whether any Officer belonging to the Junior-most empanelled batch was actually holding any post that is not encadred to his/her Service
1	Indian Administrative Service (IAS)	1983	57	Yes
2	Indian Economic Service (IES)	1979	2	No
3	Indian Revenue Service (C&CE)	1980	3	Yes
4	Indian P&T Accounts & Finance Service (IPTAFS)	1979	1	No
5	Indian Defence Accounts Service (IDAS)	1981	1	No
6	Indian Defence Estates Service (IDES)	1978	1	No
7	Indian Revenue Service (IT)	1979	1	No
8	Indian Postal Service (IPoS)	1981	2	No
9	Indian Audit & Accounts Service (IAAS)	1981	4	Yes
10	Indian Forest Service (IFoS)	1981	2	Yes

It is observed that over the last 5 years only officers belonging to 10 Services have been empanelled for Additional Secretary & Additional Secretary Equivalent posts under the Central Staffing Scheme.  The junior most batch of IAS empanelled for Additional Secretary & Additional Secretary Equivalent posts is that of 1983 whereas the 1979, 1980 & 1981 batches are the junior most from the other Services that are empanelled at this level. The representation from the non-IAS Services is also meager in the Panels prepared.  Most of the non-IAS are not actually appointed to any Additional Secretary level posts under the Central Staffing Scheme even though they were empanelled.  It can also be seen from the above tables that when 1980 batch of IAS was empanelled for Secretary level posts, the senior batches of 1979 belonging to non-IAS Services were empanelled for Additional Secretary level posts.   So, even if actually appointed, these non-IAS officers will work under the IAS officers belonging to their junior batches i.e. a senior works under his junior. This is the height of ridiculousness with which empanelment process is being taken up under the Central Staffing Scheme.  The IAS officers are simply marching over the other Services in violation of all norms of fairness and equity. 

(III) Joint Secretary & Joint Secretary Equivalent:

S.No.	Name of the Service	Junior-most Batch Empanelled for appointment to Joint Secretary & Joint Secretary Equivalent at the Centre	Number of Officers of the Junior-most Batch Empanelled
1	Indian Administrative Service (IAS)	1995	61 (Initial)
2	Indian Economic Service (IES)	1986	6
3	Indian Revenue Service (C&CE)	1985	3
4	Indian P&T Accounts & Finance Service (IPTAFS)	1989	1
5	Indian Defence Accounts Service (IDAS)	1988	1
6	Indian Defence Estates Service (IDES)	1984	4
7	Indian Revenue Service (IT)	1986	37
8	Indian Postal Service (IPoS)	1988	8
9	Indian Audit & Accounts Service (IAAS)	1991	14
10	Indian Forest Service (IFoS)	1987	47
11	Indian Trade Service (ITS)	1986	1
12	Indian Railway Service of Mechanical Engineers (IRSME)	1983	12
13	Indian Police Service (IPS)	1988	7
14	Indian Ordnance Factory Service (IOFS)	1985	21
15	Indian Information Service (IIS)	1985	1
16	Indian Railway Traffic Service (IRTS)	1986	25
17	Indian Railway Personnel Service (IRPS)	1985	1
18	Indian Civil Accounts Service (ICAS)	1988	3
19	Indian Telecom Service	1982	35
20	Indian Foreign Service (IFS)	1995	-

The empanelment for posts at the level of Joint Secretary & Joint Secretary Equivalent is a thesis on inequality, unfairness, hegemony, greed and injustice.  The 1995 batches of IAS and IFS were already empanelled for appointment to posts of Joint Secretary & Joint Secretary Equivalent under the Central Staffing Scheme.  The next nearest batch of any Service to be empanelled was that of the 1991 batch of Indian Audit & Accounts Service (IAAS).  The junior most batches of IRS(IT), IES, IRTS and ITS to be empanelled to the posts of Joint Secretary & Joint Secretary Equivalent were those of 1986.  The 1982 batch of Indian Telecom Service, 1983 batch of IRSME, 1984 batch of IDES, 1985 batches of IOFS, IIS, IRPS and IRS(C&CE) were the junior most batches so far empanelled to posts of Joint Secretary & Joint Secretary Equivalent.  So, it is very clear that non-IAS officers are simply trampled by the IAS lobby when it comes to appointments under the Central Staffing Scheme through the highly skewed process of empanelment. 

2.         Civil Services Board Procedure for Appointments:

            For staffing posts of the rank of Deputy Secretary, Director and Joint Secretary in the Ministries/Departments of the Government of India, the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) is assisted and advised by the Civil Services Board (CSB).  The functions of the CSB include:

a)      To make recommendations for appointments to the posts of Deputy Secretary, Director and Joint Secretary under the Central Staffing Scheme (CSS).

b)     To make recommendations for appointments of All India Services and Group ‘A’ Central Services to some non-CSS posts like posts of Constitutional bodies & statutory bodies, etc.

c)      To make recommendations for appointments to foreign posts in Indian Missions abroad under the administrative control of the Ministries of Finance, Commerce, etc. (other than Ministry of External Affairs).

d)     To make recommendations for appointments to captive posts of Government of India in international organizations like EDs in World Bank, IMF, ADB, etc.

e)      To draw the panels for Joint Secretary level posts under the Central Government (empanelment process).

The Establishment Officer & Additional Secretary to the Government of India, who is an IAS officer, is the ex-officio Member-Secretary to the Civil Services Board and ex-officio Secretary to the Appointments Committee of Cabinet.  The Civil Services Board prepares a panel of three officers from the lists of officers of various Services empanelled to posts of Deputy Secretary, Director and Joint Secretary for making actual appointments to posts under the Government of India.  This panel of three names will be forwarded to the Minister-in-charge for his selection.  The name of the officer selected by the Minister-in-charge will be forwarded to the ACC for approval.  The CSB inturn relies on the Committee of Secretaries (CoS) for preparing this panel of three names for appointments to posts of Deputy Secretary, Director and Joint Secretary. This Committee of Secretaries is again comprised of IAS officers.  It is anybody’s guess as to why only IAS officers are actually appointed to senior posts even though non-IAS officers are also empanelled.  The appointments process by the CSB is the second level of elimination for non-IAS officers. In the first place it is very difficult to get empanelled and in the second place it is next to impossible to actually get appointed to senior posts under the Government of India for the non-IAS officers.

            For the posts of Additional Secretary and above the empanelment and actual appointment is done by the Cabinet Secretary directly.  In this function of the Cabinet Secretary, he/she is assisted by a Special Committee of Secretaries (SCoS), which consists of senior IAS officers.  Here again it is the IAS officers who undertake the empanelment process, make recommendations for appointments and make the actual appointments. No wonder then that 74.22% of Secretary level posts and 88.14% of Additional Secretary level posts under the Government of India are occupied by the IAS officers themselves.

3.         Delay in submission of updated APARs/ACRs:

            One of the reasons given for delay in the empanelment of All India and organized Group ‘A’ Central Services for posts at the level of Secretary, Additional Secretary and Joint Secretary to the Government of India is the delay in submission of updated APARs/ACRs for consideration.  During the empanelment process, the panels of suitable officers are drawn upon an annual basis considering all officers of a particular year of allotment from one Service together as a group.  It is really difficult to consider large Services like IAS, IRS(IT), IPS and IRS(C&CE) for empanelment as completed APARs of around 100-150 officers in a batch have to be obtained.  It is a cumbersome and long drawn process.  But the real question is if it can be done for IAS why not for others?  What about the delay in case of Services with very small cadre size like IDAS, IDES, IIS, ITS, IFoS, etc.?  So, there are some deliberate manmade procedural bottlenecks which actually hamper the timely empanelment of non-IAS officers which only the Establishment Officer or Secretary (Personnel) can explain.

Suggestions for a Dynamic Personnel Administration:

1.         The empanelment process for appointments to the posts of Secretary, Additional Secretary and Joint Secretary to the Government of India has to be completely scrapped.  Every year the vacancies arising at these levels have to be uploaded on the website of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions and applications have to be called for directly from the officers belonging to all the 37 eligible Services. The applications may be submitted through proper channel by the officers who are interested in applying for these posts.  Every officer who has already been promoted to the pay Scale of the Secretary, Additional Secretary and Joint Secretary to the Government of India in their parent cadre should be made eligible to apply to the respective vacancies at the centre.  This should of course be subject to the vigilance clearance.  As observed earlier in this article, the empanelment process has become the biggest impediment for the non-IAS officers. For instance, IRS(IT) officers upto 1992 batch have already been promoted to Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) grade (Joint Secretary level) in their cadre but empanelment to the post of Joint Secretary to Government of India could be completed only upto the 1986 batch.  So, the IRS officers belonging to 1987 to 1992 batch are losing the opportunity to be appointed to posts of Joint Secretary to Government of India under the Central Staffing Scheme for no fault of theirs. Had there been no empanelment process, even officers of 1992 batch of IRS would have been eligible to apply for Joint Secretary level posts in the Government of India.  Similar is the fate of all other organized Group ‘A’ Central Services.  The process of empanelment is done to check for the eligibility of officers for appointment to senior level posts under the Government of India and to prepare a panel from which selection can be made for appointment.  So, there is duplication of efforts on the part of Department of Personnel and Training and creation of two Padmavyuhas/Chakravyuhas for the non-IAS officers to cross before being appointed to senior level posts under the Government of India.

2.         The composition of the Civil Services Board, Committee of Secretaries and the Special Committee of Secretaries should be changed.  A rule should be made saying that no two persons belonging to a single Service shall be made Members of these three bodies.  The Establishment Officer should only be a Secretary but not Member-Secretary if the incumbent is an IAS officer.  This is required because the Chairman of CSB is always the Cabinet Secretary, who is an IAS officer.  This one measure will bring in a drastic change in the Central Staffing Scheme. 

3.         The 2-year difference being maintained between the IAS and non-IAS should be completely eliminated as it violates the fundamental Right to Equality, which forms the basic structure of the Constitution of India.  No Service is superior to the other and every Service has its role and importance.  Every Service is created to achieve certain objectives and every Service should be allowed to function without any prejudice. No person becomes superior by being part of a particular Service.  It should be noted here that in Civil Services Examination some toppers are choosing Services other than IAS as their first or second choice.  So no superiority should be attributed to officers belonging to any Service.

4.         The difference in pay scales created after the Sixth Pay Commission between the IAS and non-IAS Services by the grant of additional increments to IAS & IFS on promotion to Senior Time Scale, Junior Administrative Grade and Non Functional Selection Grade should be done away with.  This difference in pay scales between the Services recruited through the same exam violates the fundamental rights of ‘Right to Equality’ and ‘Equal Pay for Equal Work’.  This also makes no sense when some higher ranked candidates in the Civil Services Examination are opting for Services other than IAS & IFS.  There is one argument made by IAS lobby that since candidates who were allotted Service other than IAS & IFS are allowed to take Civil Services Examination again with a view to make it to IAS.  This loss of service due to repeated attempts should be compensated by higher pay to IAS & IFS.  If that is the case the candidates who were allotted Services like IRTS, IRPS, ITS, IPoS, IIS, IRS(C&CE) take exam again and make it to IPS or IRS(IT).  These officers should also be given higher pay by that logic.  The fact of the matter is that this logic is actually highly illogical and promotes inequity and heartburn among non-IAS officers.

5.         Encadrement of all specialized posts to the relevant specialized Services has to be done immediately. God only knows how an IAS officer without any relevant educational qualifications or experience is more suitable to be a Secretary, Ministry of Environment & Forests than an Indian Forest Service (IFoS) officer with 30-35 years of relevant experience in the field.  Similarly, it is not clear how an IAS officer who cannot even file his own return of income is more eligible to be a Revenue Secretary than an Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer with 30-35 years of relevant experience in the field.  As per convention, IAS and IFS alternatively hold the ambassador's post in Belgium.  Who can explain how an IAS officer is more suitable than an Indian Foreign Service (IFS) officer to be an Indian Ambassador to Belgium?  Similarly, I am at a loss to understand how an IAS officer without any knowledge of accounts and audit is more suitable to be a Comptroller and Auditor General of India than an IAAS, IDAS, ICAS, IPTAFS or an IRS officer who are experts when it comes to accounts administration.  Even a kid can tell that an Indian Trade Service (ITS) officer is more suitable to be a Commerce Secretary and the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) than an IAS officer.  Similarly, an Indian Economic Service (IES) officer is far more qualified to be appointed as Executive Director (ED) in World Bank, IMF and ADB than an IAS officer.  An IRS officer is far ahead than an IAS officer in qualifications and experience to be a Director of Enforcement Directorate.  It is also not difficult to understand that an Indian Information Service (IIS) officer will make a better Secretary of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting than an IAS officer.  Similarly what is the qualification of IAS officers to be appointed as heads of regulatory bodies like RBI, SEBI, CCI, IRDA, PFRDA, etc? So, there is an urgent need to identify the posts which should be encadred to the specialized Group ‘A’ Services in the centre.  The posts at any level from Under Secretary to Secretary, which require a specialized background or experience have to be filled up only by officers belonging to the particular relevant service. 

Specialization of administration is the dire need of the time. The days are gone where a generalized IAS officer looks after the entire administration involving specialized functions like collection of revenue, diplomatic functions, legal services, engineering services, infrastructural activities, medical & health services, educational services, defence of the country from external threats, internal security, accounts & audit functions, economic functions, information services, transport services, telecommunication services, protection of environment and forests, etc.  Specialized Services/Corps were established to look after these various functions of the Government of India and these Services should be allowed to do their work.  The country had enough of these generalized bureaucrats lording over every Ministry or Department.  The country had survived this onslaught for centuries together and it is high time the country is allowed to realize its full potential through drastic changes in its personnel administration.  Where there is no specialized Service to look after the functions of a particular Ministry or Department, the officers belonging to the 37 eligible Services with relevant educational background or substantial experience in the field should be posted.  Experience should be substantial (10 years or more) otherwise IAS officers with one or two years experience in the State Governments in Departments like Health, Education, Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, Home or Finance will claim expertise in that particular field.  Actually that particular Department might have survived this IAS officer with great difficulty.  Alternatively, the Government of India should consider creating new specialized Services like Indian Medical Service, Indian Agriculture Service, Indian Education Service, etc.  Only those posts which doesn’t require any specialized knowledge on the part of the incumbent but only a high level of intelligence, integrity and general efficiency should be filled through the Central Staffing Scheme.

6.         Some more Boards have to be set up for recruitment in some specialized Departments.  A Revenue Services Board has to be set up for filling up posts in the Department of Revenue on the lines of Foreign Service Board and Services Selection Board.  Similarly Forest Service Board, Accounts Services Board, etc are to be formed.  These are the urgent requirement under the present circumstances.  These Boards should be constituted on the lines of Foreign Service Board whereby only relevant officers from the relevant Services are made part of them.  For instance, the Revenue Services Board should have only IRS officers and Accounts Services Board should have officers from IAAS, ICAS, IDAS and IPTAFS. This will make these Services independent of the ever-expanding IAS.  When this is being done for IFS why not for other important Services?  This will also not entail any additional expenditure as these Boards will simply replace the Civil Services Board, Committee of Secretaries and Special Committee of Secretaries. 

7.         As recommended by the First Administrative Reforms Commission (1966-70), the Department of Personnel & Training should not itself administer any service cadre. The administrative control of different service cadres should vest with individual Ministries and Departments concerned. The administration of the IAS and the Central Secretariat Service should be the responsibility of the Ministry of Home Affairs.  The generalized character of the IAS should be eliminated for efficiency in administration. Hence, a specific functional filed should be carved out for the IAS.  The IAS should be converted into a functional Service.  In the words of the First ARC,

“If the higher posts in the different functional areas are encadred within one Service, as has happened in the case of the IAS posts in the States, qualified and competent persons will not be attracted to all the needed functions and, hence, growth of well-organized Services in the emerging areas of administration are likely to be inhibited. In the changing context, therefore, the old concept underlying the formation and the role of the IAS would require readjustment. We would recommend that a specific functional field must be carved out for the IAS. This would consist of Land Revenue Administration, exercise of magisterial functions, and regulatory work in the States, in fields other than those looked after by officers of other functional services.” 

8.         As recommended by the Sixth Pay Commission, Certain posts in the Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) and the Higher Administrative Grade (HAG) requiring technical or specialized expertise and not encadred in any of the Services are to be opened up for being filled up by suitable officers within the Government as well as from private sector who can bring in new skills into Government.  However, here again the authority making selection should be broad based and should not contain more than one person from the same Service/background.   Otherwise it will be an old wine in a new bottle.  Similarly civil servants should be permitted to work in the private sector as well as in academic and other non-government institutions while retaining a lien in government. As recommended by the 2^nd ARC, in drawing up the list of external organizations to which government servants can be permitted to go on deputation, the primary consideration should be the objectives and activities of such organizations and not merely its organizational structure. Government should permit deputation of civil servants only to such organizations that are engaged in non-profit making activities to ensure that there is no conflict of interest.

9.         The post of Cabinet Secretary to the Government of India, the highest position in the Indian civil service, has remained the privilege only of the officers from the IAS.  This post has to be made open for recruitment from other Services.  Similarly, the posts of Secretary (Personnel) and Establishment Officer are always occupied by the IAS.  Officers from other Services should also be appointed to these posts.  It should be made mandatory that no two officers belonging to the same Service be posted successively to the posts of Cabinet Secretary, Secretary (Personnel) and Establishment Officer.  It should also be ensured that no two officers from the same Service occupies these three posts at the same time. This will ensure diversity and improvement in the personnel administration of the country.

Conclusion:

The framework of the Government of India has to facilitate a staffing pattern which promotes a link between policy making and implementation. This will also help the structure of both the Government of India and the States and promotes the concept of cooperative federalism.  Public servants working in Government of India as well as its attached and subordinate offices have to develop a national outlook transcending parochial boundaries. This will strengthen national integration.  This is all the more necessary because policy making today is a specialized function which requires a broader perspective, conceptual understanding of the domain and proper appreciation of the external environment.  The first ARC recommended a scheme of reforms to enable entry into middle and senior management levels in the Central Secretariat from all Services on the basis of knowledge and experience in the respective areas of specialization. The Hota Committee on Civil Services Reforms, 2004, had recommended that domain assignment should be introduced for civil servants to encourage acquisition of skills, professional excellence and career planning. It had also recommended that empanelment and posting of Joint Secretaries, Additional Secretaries and Secretaries should be carried out through domain assignment, competitive selection and matching of available skills with the job requirements.

As regards the placement of officers, the Surinder Nath Committee observed as

follows:

“The principal problem with the present system of selections for particular positions under the Central Staffing Scheme is that there is no systematic matching of the competency requirements for particular positions and the backgrounds of the candidate officers. Also, there is no formal system of eliciting the interests and preferences of officers for particular positions, consistent with their background and broader career interests. These lead to unseemly scrambles for particular prestigious positions, in which unstructured influences are pervasive. The result is, frequently, a glaring mismatch between the required competencies and the backgrounds of officers selected for the positions. Career profiles of officers end up displaying the features of a “random walk”, with no regard to building skills and capabilities. In the long-term, these result in poor policy-making and implementation, as well as insufficient capacity for policymaking and public management.”

The First Administrative Reforms Commission had also recognized the importance of domain competency and advocated its philosophy for the management and staffing of civil service positions in the following manner:

1)      “Devising a rational basis to fill policy-making positions with officers having required qualifications and domain competence. This would involve an optimum use of different Services for policy making assignments in the secretariat.

2)      Selecting senior management personnel from all relevant sources - generalist and specialist.  Talent needs to be identified and nurtured in all the Services.

3)      Providing greater opportunities to talented and competent personnel to move to higher positions in the Government.”

According to the Sarkaria Commission on Centre-State Relations, “The present accent on generalism should yield place to greater specialisation in one or more areas of public administration. Training and career development policies should be geared to this objective.”

The Indian Civil Service had its origins in the erstwhile British Civil Service of colonial days.  The foundation of the British Civil Service was based on aristocracy.  Even though the modern British Civil Service has changed considerably in line with the modern principles of administration, the Indian Civil Service has still retained the archaic principles.  It is time for a big shake up of the Indian Civil Service from its slumber.   Since independence many committees and commissions have been appointed to usher in administrative reforms in the personnel administration of the country.  Lot of changes have been introduced but unfortunately all these reforms have gone on to strengthen the position of IAS at the cost of all other Services and to the detriment of the country as a whole.  The main reason for this state of affairs is that, in India, even though civil service reforms have mostly come at the initiative of the elected representatives forming the government of the day, the reforms were actually suggested and implemented by the IAS.  The Indian civil Service should dynamically modernize itself.   The professionalization of its activities will bring in speed and reduce the redtape.  What best way than to start with by modifying and improving the Central Staffing Scheme based on the principles of equity, fairness, justice and efficiency.  Hope the 7^th Pay Commission and the new government at the centre takes care to usher in a new and dynamic personnel administration at the centre to achieve the lofty ideals enumerated in the Constitution of India, which include the need to alleviate acute poverty, sustaining a healthy and inclusive economic growth, ensuring social justice, maintaining peace and harmony, and the achievement of an ethical, efficient, transparent and a participative governance.

The writer is an Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer currently posted as Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation) at Hyderabad. The views expressed here are those of the writer and not that of the Government. The writer can be reached at prasantpsirs1@gmail.com....keep on Blogging...