Editorial: Lateral limits
The government’s decision to expand the policy of lateral entry into the bureaucracy is, no doubt, appreciable, but it alone cannot solve the crunch of IAS officers nor can it be seen as a panacea for the ills plaguing the administrative machinery. The primary objective of this initiative is to hire experts and specialists from […]
The government’s decision to expand the policy of lateral entry into the bureaucracy is, no doubt, appreciable, but it alone cannot solve the crunch of IAS officers nor can it be seen as a panacea for the ills plaguing the administrative machinery. The primary objective of this initiative is to hire experts and specialists from the market and place them in relevant ministries at the ranks of joint secretary, director, and deputy secretary. So far, 37 officers have been appointed through lateral recruitment across 21 ministries and departments. However, it is far-fetched to project this programme as a key element of civil services reforms because it is unlikely to do much to solve the shortage of IAS officers. These lateral recruits, especially those from the private sector, are unlikely to have the training required to handle matters pertaining to federal functioning and to deal with State- and district-level officers. The government can use the services of lateral entrants as market experts rather than as administrators dealing with the tricky task of governance and policy-making. The number of personnel the government plans to recruit through lateral entry is miniscule and will have a negligible impact on filling the vacancies. More importantly, the Centre must first treat the States as equal partners in development and give up the idea of exercising greater control over the civil servants. The spirit of federalism that guides the country can be strengthened only if the States are strong and given the flexibility and freedom to take policy decisions in the interests of the people.
One area which defines the harmony of the Centre-State relations is how the civil service wing of the government is handled. Unfortunately, on this front, the NDA government has been tinkering with the powers of the States. The revelation by a parliamentary standing committee that over 1,500 sanctioned IAS officer posts at the State level are lying vacant reflects the level of apathy. The shortage of IAS officers is adversely impacting administrative work in many States. It was earlier thought that the problem of vacancies in the IAS officer posts was only at the Central government level but the parliamentary panel’s report makes it clear that the backlog of vacancies is impacting the State governments too. This is despite quick fixes like conferring IAS on State civil service officers or temporarily appointing other Central or State cadre officers to posts reserved for IAS. There is a strong case for significantly increasing the annual intake to fill the sanctioned posts. The last review of IAS cadre strengths in 2012 fixed the annual intake at 180 officers. However, in tune with the growing administrative needs, this number needs to go up drastically. The policy of lateral entry to infuse professionalism into the bureaucracy, though commendable, has not made much headway.
