Meritocracy in bureaucracy

The government has assigned responsibilities to the newly appointed secretaries and transferred some of them to new ministries. The basis on which responsibilities were assigned and transfers made has once again raised questions of impartiality. As they rightly say, bureaucracy is a permanent government—more so in countries like ours where changes of governments are so frequent that it’s the bureaucracy that provides some semblance of continuity to the state. But if we fail to promote meritocracy and uphold the self-confidence of top civil servants, the very foundations of the state will be shaken. Sadly, that’s what has happened year after year, and it wasn’t any different this time.



As the new secretaries were being appointed last week the politicians were actively backing bureaucrats who were close to their respective parties or with whom they had personal connections. The helpless civil servants were also found knocking on the doors of politicians to curry favor. It’s not to suggest that all the newly appointed secretaries made it to the top because there was someone in political circles to favor them. By the same token, it also does not mean that all those who failed to get promoted deserved to be promoted. But what can be safely argued is that in many cases nepotism or party allegiance trumped meritocracy. And that’s sad and unfortunate. However difficult it may be we must try to maintain full impartiality and uphold meritocracy in the civil service.



The issue of secretarial transfers is even more serious. Theoretically, we all can agree that the minister—or the prime minister for that matter— must have the right to work with a secretary he or she is “comfortable” with. But what if a minister wants to change his secretary simply because the latter is unwilling to accept his illegitimate and illegal doings? Should the prime minister entertain the request of such a minister to change his secretary? The answer, without any doubt, is NO. But this time too the prime minister accepted such requests from ministers and transferred secretaries accordingly. There are a number of such cases but one of them stands out. The cabinet transferred secretary at the Ministry of Forest and Land Conservation Udaya Raj Sharma simply because he had taken a stance against Minister Deepak Bohara’s illegitimate decision to renew the licenses of seven resorts inside the Chitwan National Park without any open competition. Laws and regulations governing the awarding of contracts for resorts clearly say that it should be done through open competition. Secretary Sharma had also briefed the prime minister about the case. But he has been made a victim for taking the right stance. Such practices must end or else secretaries will end up backing whatever the ministers say.

Related story

Academics laud adoption of meritocracy in appointment of univer...