Advantage All

FOR ALL OUR ADVANCEMENTS AS A SOCIETY, THE ONE WHICH STANDS out is our proclivity to reduce all arguments to the binary. So, what may be well-intentioned is never beyond suspicion, and what may be a valid counterpoint may get ignored. Consequently, the scope for reconciliation gets reduced and opportunities for a leisurely and comprehensive understanding are missed.

Take for instance the ongoing debate on lateral entry to a few middle-level positions in the Central government. To refresh the background, some ministries and departments of the government approached the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) to recruit for contractual appointment to posts of joint secretaries, directors and deputy secretaries. The posts required certain specialised academic and professional qualifications, along with relevant work experience of varying periods for each level; distinct from those prescribed for regular and permanent recruitments at the entry level of different services, through examinations conducted by the commission. While the requirement of each ministry or department under it was different, UPSC’s advertisement of August 18 was for the pooled requirement totalling 45 posts, 10 of joint secretaries and 35 of the other two levels. The requirement was from as many as 24 indenting ministries and departments, and ranged from ex­pertise in digital economy, emerging technologies, semiconduc­tors, artificial intelligence (AI), climate change and environment policies, fintech, investments, science and technology, shipping, renewable energy, cyber security, disaster management, etc.

It is nobody’s case that the mandatory reservation of posts for the Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes of Citizens (OBC) can be discretionary in recruitment to posts under the government. Expectedly, there was an uproar that there was no mention of reservation of posts under the advertisement released by the commission. The government clarified that it was committed to the policy of reservation and quickly ordered withdrawal of the advertisement. It quickly corrected a lapse which may have been in part because of the isolated nature of the posts taken individu­ally, being in single digits and not even adding up to the 13-point roster for each “employer”—that is, the department or ministry, and considered “single post cadres”.

In any case, a decision to pool the requirements in a common advertisement for as many as 45 posts begs the question as to why the Supreme Court-mandated 13-point roster, for identi­fying posts that should be reserved for different categories, was overlooked. It is a different matter whether the court has done full justice by preferring that roster to the earlier prevalent 200-point roster. In any case, there is no denying the merits and demerits of each, and the need to ensure balance between practical difficulties and undeniable aspirations of each section of society.

In the instant issue, the policy of reservation in government posts and the policy of lateral entry into such posts are not binaries, even if there be some perceived difficulties in actually de­termining which posts to reserve—for example, why should the post of deputy secretary specialising in AI be reserved as against that of another specialising in climate change, or vice versa. Sure­ly, some randomised system of identifying posts to be reserved can be arrived at, causing the least heartburn among appointees. The mandatory nature of reservations to contractual posts apart, the two policies can complement each other for good reasons. For ex­ample, our universities and institutions of higher education and research, including prestigious public institutions—IIT, AIIMS, IARI, etc—have been, over the years, training large numbers of bright young minds from all sections of society, many of whom are serving the private sector, academic institutions, and non-government organisations (NGOs), with distinction. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect several of them to aspire to partake in serving the public system for the unique exposure that contract appointment through lateral entry would provide them with. It follows that the anxiety that somehow posts calling for expertise may remain vacant, if reserved, is misplaced and imaginary.

We know that lateral entry, albeit at very high levels of administration, dates back several decades. That distinguished individuals have contributed immensely to our nation-building and there are several examples to go by. The commanding heights of the economy, as our public heavy industries used to be called, owe a great deal to the lateral entrants

Share this on

The question of reservation in lateral entry should, therefore, be the least of our worries. The major worry in the current debate is about the risk of throwing out the policy of lateral entry itself. It is worth repeating that it would be unfortunate to confuse the two policies as opposites. Fortunately, every debate in the public arena is an opportunity for the citizen to know and learn. So it is with this debate. Thanks to it, we now know that lateral entry, al­beit at very high levels of administration, dates back several decades. That several distinguished individuals have contribut­ed immensely to our nation-building, and there are several examples to go by—pow­er sector reforms, fiscal reforms, telecom policy reforms, to name just a few. Indeed, the commanding heights of the economy, as our public heavy industries used to be called, owe a great deal to the lateral en­trants, some of whom went on to cham­pion several new sectors as they emerged in the decades of the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and some even later.

We also learn that several high-level public forums—the Constitution Review Commission (2002), the Second Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC, 2005), and the Sixth Central Pay Commission (CPC, 2008)—had recom­mended or endorsed lateral entry to select government posts. The rationale for lateral entry is founded in the felt need for improv­ing efficiencies and effectiveness of public governance and in delivery of services to the rising aspirations of citizens through induction of fresh ideas and expertise in emerging fields. What is more, based on CPC recommendations, a draft proposal to open up 10 per cent of posts at the joint secretary level for lateral induction had also been drawn up. Reportedly, a sectoral group of secretaries in the Central government has also supported lateral entry to middle-level posts for similar reasons.

We also know that, in the last five years, as many as 63 indi­viduals have been recruited by UPSC for appointment on lateral contractual basis, and 57 or so of them are currently working. There is no evidence to show that any of these appointments has been egregious or made other than on the basis of merit. Had that been so, the entrenched bureaucracy at all levels would not have, in its own ways, left the entrants unscathed. And an ever-alert news media would not have missed out on the obvious newsworthiness of it. The ARC, while recommending lateral entry, had called for an institutionalised and transparent process of selection; and the CPC had, earlier, recommended UPSC to select the lateral entrants. Considering that the permanent recruitments to the vari­ous services are made by the commission in discharge of its constitutional duties, it stands to reason that its selections of lateral entrants are beyond reproach.

If we look around, those public systems which leverage all available resources in a society and its economy have been delivering more to their citizens than those where the public sector has to deliver by itself. It is generally accepted that inter alia any system, public or private, does stand to gain through cross-pollination of ideas, through infusion of new knowledge, through reimagining innovative ways of doing business other than the usual, and through exposure and transfer of new and emerging technologies, etc.

It needs to be conceded that the public systems have several limitations owing to their very nature, and the most critical of which is that they are not flexible or nimble-footed in adapting to changes outside, and play catch-up but with some time-lag. This lag, however short, can be met through lateral entry, which has to be necessarily contractual

Share this on

T IS NOBODY’S case that government does not have highly talented and brilliant minds. Indeed, a background check on the academic achievements of those entering the various permanent services in government, and their enrichment through mid-career training programmes, shows the immense wealth of human resources at its disposal. Equally, it needs to be conceded that the public systems have several limitations owing to their very nature, and the most critical of which is that they are not flexible or nimble-footed in adapting to changes outside, and play catch-up but with some time-lag. This lag, however short, can be met through lateral entry, which has to be necessarily con­tractual in order to avoid knowledge or skill redundancies and leave it open for hiring those possessing newer and emerging skill-sets of the future. This arrangement saves public resources that would otherwise be expended on tooling and retooling the permanent civil service. That is not to say civil servants need not be upskilled—of course, they ought to be and must be, but rather than making it a conscious effort to force-fit the unwilling to get upskilled regimentally in a particular sector, they could be en­couraged to pursue their own sectoral interests. In that sense, lateral entrants—with their cutting-edge updated knowledge and skill-sets—could positively trigger the innate competitive nature of civil servants, who are but products of some of the most competitive examinations anywhere.

In arriving at those recommendations, each of the public forums mentioned earlier must have given considerable thought to the pros and cons of lateral entry. One of the negatives argued very often is the possibility of the demoralisation of the perma­nent services. This fear is more imaginary than real, for the rea­son that career civil servants are unlikely to perceive short-term contractual entrants as any threat at all. If anything, the exposure to the entrants is bound to bring out the urge in them to upskill themselves for reasons explained earlier. The possible skirting of the constitutional obligation of reservation of posts and the remedy, thereto, has already been dealt with. Yet another possibil­ity of critical concern is that of collusive strategic positioning of entrants by vested private interests, through one-way or revolv­ing-door tactics. This is something that the government must always remain alert to, and come down heavily on through pun­ishments at the slightest hint of conflicts of interests. This threat is real because even permanent civil servants and government officers are known to join private organisations, in some cases even seeking voluntary retirement—this, even though there are rules in place on the dos and don’ts of such associations.

Finally, every public policy is essentially, by definition, political. Therefore, there is no gainsaying that arguing for or against the policy of lateral entry is anything but political. While it is only true that every policy could be perceived as having winners and losers, the challenge is to regulate the potential one-sided gains and limit the perceived losses. And, therefore, the success of a sound policy design lies in its being perceived as a win-win by all stakeholders. The policy of lateral entry into specific government posts submitting itself to the general policy of reservations is one such policy which can be a win-win for all. More so now, since it appears that the only valid ground of challenge on account of reservation has evidently been reassur­ingly resolved. However, by way of caution, let it be said that we ought to guard against throwing out the baby with the bathwa­ter, that is, guard against burying the policy of lateral entry itself on extraneous grounds.

About The Author

Sunil Kumar

Sunil Kumar is a former chief secretary of Chhattisgarh