This author received an email containing this message (edited for clarity, though) by a Joint Secretary who was eligible for the post of Secretary but not elevated to the post few weeks back. This email came in the wake of promotion of 16 joint secretaries to the post of Secretary recently. This thought-provoking statement that a Joint Secretary shared with this author to express his dissatisfaction contains three serious messages. First, he has raised the issue of seniority, merits and qualifications required for the promotion. Second, he has pointed out the issue of integrity and third, political intervention, power brokers' malpractice in the name of promotion and scams involved in the promotion game.
Seniority and merits
This is not the first time where qualified Joint Secretaries are rejected. There have been a number of instances where officials with about 15 years of experience in capacity of Joint Secretary in government service were not elevated for the coveted Secretary post. This author has seen lots of Joint Secretaries tendering resignation after not being made the Secretary. They quit quietly and sometimes don't even leak their resignation to the media. Though our Civil Service Act envisages seniority to be the top priority while promoting a Joint Secretary to Secretary, the provision has grossly been misused by almost all the governments. Seniority is measured as per someone's entry date to the concerned position. If someone is promoted to the Joint Secretary earlier than the other, s/he becomes the senior.
Though our Civil Service Act makes it mandatory for the Promotion Committee to give first priority to the senior officers, many seniors were dumped for many years in the past and the trend still continues. Ministers say that someone was not picked for promotion despite his/her seniority due to poor performance and bad track record. Sometimes the administrative experts opine that seniority cannot be compared with one's performance and merits. Theoretically, these arguments seem valid. Yet, are all those promoted qualified enough for the post? Do those promoted have excellent track record with better performance and merits?
To be eligible for the post of the Secretary, among many other provisions, one has to complete five years in capacity of a Joint Secretary. Unfortunately, those having 10-15 years of working experience as a Joint Secretary are not promoted whereas those who have just completed five years but have strong network and racketing with party leaders and behind the scene power wielders get easy promotions. Our problem is that even the senior Joint Secretaries are not promoted despite their outstanding performance and impeccable track record for failing to offer bribes to vested interest groups.
If we look into the implications of this trend, it gets more severe. If senior officials are not promoted despite their sound performance and excellent qualifications, officials will start concentrating on making money to bribe leaders for promotion rather than polishing their performance and qualifications.
Integrity and intervention
Our Civil Service Act also gives due importance to integrity as one of the basic requirements for promotion. However, this provision has also been blatantly misused. There have been quite a lot of examples that those controversial in terms of financial irregularities have been promoted to various positions in government service including that of the Secretary. Integrity refers to someone who has long maintained honesty in terms of monetary, ethical, and professional fronts. However, many tainted joint secretaries have been promoted one after the other. When journalists and people from various walks of life ask concerned ministers and leaders to clarify the reasons for not promoting a Joint Secretary with high integrity, the answers come like this: the decision was taken because of his/her poor performance. Is that answer rational, judicious and acceptable to all?
The third issue the disgruntled Joint Secretary raised is severe, damaging and mainly responsible behind the weak and fragile bureaucracy. Dashain, Hindus' main festival, is the time when many ministers and party leaders deal with the issue of Joint Secretary's promotion. Those ministers and party leaders start bargaining with officials during this period. There are allegations that they openly demand money from government officials. Unfortunately, our civil servants don't dare resist and expose such power brokers and leaders. They easily succumb to such ministers and leaders and pay money for their promotion. Those who can pay as demanded by the leaders are sure to be promoted and those who invest their entire career for better service delivery face the consequence like the joint secretary who shared his plights with this author.
It would be biased and inappropriate to say that all Joint Secretaries were promoted by bribing ministers and leaders. There are instances where honest, professional Joint Secretaries have also been promoted without giving money to the leaders and power brokers. But the number of those getting promotion without paying even a single penny is a trifle. The number of those getting promotion by paying money and making false commitment to serve every interest of particular minister, leaders or power honchos after being promoted is high.
Promotion system
Our promotion system is neither transparent nor cogent. Those with ample leadership qualities are rarely given an opportunity either in the process of promotion or in terms of getting fellowships and training opportunities. Our promotion system is still traditional. Less skilled people are given more priority than those with strong experience, sound academic and other required background, integrity and merit. Work performance is believed to be the most important criterion while grading the overall status of civil servants. Past track record, work performance and merit should have been the topmost priority while promoting civil servants. Unfortunately this has always been overshadowed.
A number of flaws can be pointed out on the part of Promotion Committee's recommendation mechanism as well. For example, the Promotion Committee recommends three names for one vacant post. If there is one post vacant for the position of a Secretary, it recommends the names of three candidates. Actually, this provision seems to be one of the prime contributing factors behind the arbitrary promotion trends deepening in our administrative system. Various interest groups including ministers, party leaders, power brokers and contractors approach those three recommended candidates and then start bargaining with them following the Promotion Committee's recommendation.
Those who refuse to compromise with any illegitimate forces have high chance of being taken off the promotion list. And those who make unethical deal compromising with all professional norms and values have high chance of getting promotion. All this was visible in the past. That is why the practice of recommending three names for a single post has to be scrapped without further delay. If such provision is rendered null and void, that will largely help end the arbitrary promotion trends.
There is no provision where our cabinet clarifies the rejected ones as to why s/he was not elevated. Some blame the concerned minister, vested interest groups and party leaders for unfair promotion while others point to civil servants themselves for malpractice behind the promotion. Who is responsible then? This author, having gained experience as a bureaucracy reporter, strongly believes that both the sides—minister/leaders/power brokers and civil servants are equally responsible for the problem. Both the sides have to rise above petty interests if the promotion system is to be made transparent, judicious and acceptable to all.
Twitter: @bimal_gautam
Related story
9th National Games: There is no coach in Gandaki Province
-1200x560-1774341373.webp)
