Editorial

Promotion of officers

It has raised some pertinent questions
No fewer than 84 officers have been promoted to be additional secretary, after serving as joint secretary for only 13 months. This en masse elevation of senior officers to a higher level has raised some pertinent questions, thanks to a number of factors that smack of clear deviations from the standard practice.

The government could not create the required number of posts for the promoted officers, though reports say the initial plan was to give them specific duties after they were given promotion. This might aggravate the OSD syndrome in the administration which drew the attention of the press not long ago. Reports also say that officers having the advantage of proximity to the powers that be were the main beneficiaries of the wholesale promotion plan.

There might be a lot many things to say for and against the process that the government relied on for promoting the officers. However, the fallout of the action is what the decision-makers should have taken into consideration. The civil servants who expect a strict adherence to rules and regulations in such matters are likely to be upset if promotion is based on a loose and subjective assessment of seniority and efficiency. For example, officers hand-picked from the 1973 to 1979 batches have been promoted as additional secretary. So there was no cut-off point as far as service length was concerned. Officers of too many batches have been stuffed together to prepare a promotion list which clearly violated the principle of seniority. Supersession does take place in government service, but it should be an exception, not rule.

The upshot of it all is that the morale of the civil service will be affected adversely as officers might begin to feel that promotion will not come their way as a matter of right in future. The promoted officers themselves are reported to have been embarrassed by the fact that many deserving candidates were left out. Worse still, politically influential people are said to have resorted to intense lobbying in favour of their candidates.

So discretion and confidentiality gave way to controversy, publicity and a debate over a matter which in the past was never brought to public glare the way it has been this time around. The decision-makers, however, should have shown due sensitivity to the rules and norms that form the very basis of the civil service.