I would not have written this piece but for a news item that there is a proposal to change the procedure to be followed by the CSB(Civil Services Board) .The CSB was created on the direction in 2013 by the Supreme Court to protect civil servants from premature transfers.
In Indian Administrative service (cadre) Rules ,1954, a new schedule was added on January 28,2014.This schedule provided for the composition of CSB as follows:
1.Chief Secretary .. .Chairman
2.Senior most Additional Chief Secretary,or Chairman ,Board of Revenue or Financial Commissioner
or officer of equivalent rank and status . . .Member
3.Principal Secretary , department of Personnel in the state government . . .Member Secretary
Procedure followed by the CSB is to be as follows:The CSB
(1)shall consider the report of administrative department along with any other inputs it may have from other reliable sources.
(11).Obtain the comments or views of the officer proposed to be transferred based on the circumstances presented to it in the justification of the proposal
(111)Not make recommendation of the transfer of the cadre officers unless it has been satisfied itself of the reasons of such premature transfer.
The Rules of 2014 provide that minimum tenure of civil servants is two years , but a civil servant can be shifted before two years from a post if the CSB recommends the proposal.
1.Chief Secretary .. .Chairman
2.Senior most Additional Chief Secretary,or Chairman ,Board of Revenue or Financial Commissioner
or officer of equivalent rank and status . . .Member
3.Principal Secretary , department of Personnel in the state government . . .Member Secretary
Procedure followed by the CSB is to be as follows:The CSB
(1)shall consider the report of administrative department along with any other inputs it may have from other reliable sources.
(11).Obtain the comments or views of the officer proposed to be transferred based on the circumstances presented to it in the justification of the proposal
(111)Not make recommendation of the transfer of the cadre officers unless it has been satisfied itself of the reasons of such premature transfer.
The Rules of 2014 provide that minimum tenure of civil servants is two years , but a civil servant can be shifted before two years from a post if the CSB recommends the proposal.
In the first week of August ,2015, the Central government circulated a proposal to change the existing rules of procedure followed by CSB, that make it mandatory for the CSB to get a report from the department concerned and hear out the officer before clearing a premature transfer.The new proposal says that in such cases ,the CSB may"obtain such information from the relevant sources" as it desires.In other words,there is a proposal to delete first part of clause (1) and full clause (11) above. The Centre's communication to the states makes it clear that the changes were proposed by the Government of Uttar Pradesh.The U.P. Government had given the suggestion at a conference of states earlier this year(2015).
The constitution of a CSB headed by the Chief secretary and having other senior officers serving under the state government makes it totally vulnerable to the dictates of the political executive.Such a CSB " recommends" all premature transfers which are decided beforehand by the Chief Minister ,in case of all India services(IAS,IPS , IFS).I do not know what the supreme court had in mind when they directed the clearance by such a CSB.A pliable , subservient and vulnerable CSB is completely ineffective in stopping the premature transfers done on the grounds of political expediency or the "dictates of the sovereign".It forces the chief secretary and his colleagues to take the responsibility for recommending proposals which they may not find reasonable or feel satisfied about ,but which they are forced to recommend because they want to continue in the senior key posts like chief secretary and other equivalent posts, for the reasons of their own .Let us face it .What is the value addition of such a CSB to good governance? Practically none.I agree that there is a hypocrisy in most of the areas of public life in India , but when such a hypocrisy has the indirect sanction from the highest offices , the search of the people of India for good governance is just a cry in wilderness.
The step of trying to change the procedure to be followed by the CSB is just an indication that we want to drive the last nail in the coffin of the CSB(which is dead ,in any case.).The fact that this nail has reportedly come from my own state of Uttar Pradesh makes me feel concerned.I also wonder if this was the intention of the supreme court. What good governance do we expect from civil servants who are not sure how long they will remain in their present post, and which next morning , they will read in the newspapers ( along with million with others) that they have been transferred prematurely to a new post in a new place.
2 comments:
We need principled leadership at the top, with a spine for reform. Unless there is political will right at the very top, or a firm and clear legal dictat by the apex Court, the of the political class will resist such governance reforms that erode their discretionary powers. Contrast the example you have given with the example of the Labour government of Tony Blair in the late 1990s, which voluntarily ceded its power to set interest rates and formed a Monetary Policy Committee with only economists and experts who were empowered to set the national interest rate every month, rendering the decision apolitical and based on economic imperatives.
Thank you , Prof Geeta , for your comments.I agree that political class in India , both at the Centre and at the states , finds it difficult to give up its discretionary powers .We have yet to wait for the likes of Tony Blair to emerge in India.But it is important that people in general are aware of the real situation.
Post a Comment