Shakeel Ahmad Rather
It is a welcome move that a transfer policy has been drafted by Jammu and Kashmir Government for Education Department teachers (lecturers included) and suggestions have been asked from the stakeholders so that the policy could be finalized. However the initiative to streamline the transfers does not seem anywhere in the proposed policy as Education Minister Naeem Akhter had promised. The policies have come at various times in past and all have contributed to creating more of a mess than to streamline it. For past more than sixty years the Governments have failed to bring the most needed transparency in the system and tried to make quick fixes and adjustments under some compulsions which may be political, social or even personal sometimes.
A streamlined transfer policy must have few important characteristics which have been deficient in all the previous policies so far. I may point to few characteristics here.
* It must be transparent and every stakeholder should be able to know beforehand approximately where shall be his/her next posting.
* It should be based on choice to maximum extent possible so that an employee does not feel that he/she is performing his/her duties under compulsion.
* It should be free from intervention from authorities as for as it is practicable so that ways for corrupt practices are almost negligible.
* It should be based on quantitative facts such as seniority, age, qualification etc.
Given these facts the proposed policy stands nowhere. However, followings points are still worth to be mentioned regarding the proposed policy.
The proposed policy says that ‘since the concern of a teaching staff member is essentially of non-displacement from the place of residence … the tenure shall be viewed with reference to the place where the employee is required to maintain his(/her) residence’. Further ‘a teaching staff member may be transferred from one school to another at the end of an academic year on cogent reasons including the performance of an official, school results, enrollment, rationalization, administrative measures like subject specific requirements, pooling of posts rather than having specific sanctioned post on a particular school etc.’ It is just speculative use of words and nothing else. Primary concern of a teacher is not non-displacement of residence rather it is ‘suitable choice’ which has not been alluded to even. And saying that the transfers shall be made on cogent reasons is easier said than done. The few reasons mentioned above such as performance, result, rationalization etc. are not quantitative terms to be assessed in the normal way. It is not easy to judge the performance of a teacher by just looking at the result of a class. There is interplay of various factors to make a class-result to be good or bad for a particular year. For example, a teacher employed to teach 9th class students may have to teach students who have been promoted to 9th class without consideration to their actual learning or academic performance. May be some mass promotion may have pushed them higher. Then the scheme of general examination is so inefficient that many students get promoted to higher classes who are deficient in ordinary writing skill, let alone the skill to understand the text of a particular subject. Some students in rural areas don’t even know the spellings of the subjects they are studying. When a court asks a degree holder to write an essay on ‘cow’ and he fails, can’t it be said that there are similar cases around in education department and these black sheep have contributed to the deterioration of the education in general and it impacts the other stakeholders in other classes?
In the next point it is mentioned that maximum tenure would be three years which implies that the teacher would be transferred after he/she has served at a location for three years. So for so good but in practice it is impracticable. Zones numbered Zone I as defined in draft are so small that the influx of transfers from zones numbered as Zone II after three years maximum tenure would be so great that this rule of maximum-3-year-tenure would burst and explode the system. This is especially a case for the towns in hilly areas which have large rural catchments around. Only one challenge is sufficient to prove this. Let the transferring authorities implement this rule and on failure hold him or her liable to strict action. In other word transferring authority should be made somehow responsible for failures. Let the rules be devised to inflict penalty on failures. The result of this rule would come within one year only.
A teacher would be rotated between Zone I and Zone II subject to availability of posts. The mention of ‘subject to availability of posts’ is way out to play foul for the authorities. If a teacher has served in Zone II for maximum period then he/she must be adjusted in Zone I and post must be made available. If it is not done that way the whole policy shatters and loopholes are created. There is room for corruption and same old vicious circle starts as has been the case in the past.
On promotion an official is likely to be posted to difficult areas whether immediately or latter subject to the exclusion from Administrative Department. The wording in this clause is such that it can easily be manipulated by the authorities for their own use and may kill the essential requirement of justice. The use of Zone has been avoided in the above clause. However it may be inferred that ‘difficult areas’ fall in Zone II and Zone III. On promotion an official who is essentially a teacher in this context needs to be adjusted in Zone II or Zone III not likely but compulsorily so that remote areas will have ample staff. And further, on promotions an employee expects adjustments outside. However there should have been mention of adjustment considering the age and physical fitness of the promotee based on a clear and transparent availability of data to all who are concerned. A young man would gladly serve in Zone III compared to a middle aged man who has lot of liabilities. Then it must be made clear on what grounds should Administrative Department be allowed to exclude a particular teacher from generality. If it is not mentioned, the past is repeated here again and we are served old wine in new bottle and nothing more than that.
Official recruited from RBA (resident of backward area) must serve in that area as per the draft policy. This is again wishful thinking as the experience of past shows. The defined backward areas are so haphazard that many times a backward area is nearer to town than another area which does not fall under RBA category. Again if an RBA teacher is adjusted in own RBA area the purpose of clause is served but if he is forced to serve in another RBA area the natural justice is marred.
In bold face it is mentioned that special consideration shall be accorded, subject to administrative efficacy, to adjustment of spouses, of a lady after marriage, lady having young child, official with specially abled children, official attaining age of superannuation and official on some medical grounds. There are similar other factors which must be considered such as person having ailing aged parents, persons having children studying in schools who need special parental attention, a person under depression due to some recent shock etc. The list would be endless and essentially better to be dispensed with. Then, saying ‘subject to administrative efficacy’ is essentially a matter of debate. It may, like other points above, be used by authorities for their own ends without compunctions.
In respect of district cadre posts, it is mentioned that ‘no official shall be posted to any school where he/she has served over the past five years or immediately preceding two postings’. This is a move, I suppose, to curb the repetitive postings in same school and it is welcome move but it would better serve its purpose if it is used for Zone I postings only. Then, the teachers who have always been posted in Zone I area in the past due to their influences or use of money would be forced to move out of towns. It will also make availability of teachers in Zone II areas.
Mention of model schools and postings there on exception basis from the generality is an insult on other teachers. Every school must be a model school and Government must work towards that. It is consistent failure of Governments that educational institutions have failed to deliver.
A general question on the creation of zones is that demarcation of zones is not under any circumstances accurate. Say a town is in Zone I and areas just outside the town i.e., outside municipal limits which are essentially urban in nature have been marked as Zone II areas which is altogether a false demarcation. So, schools in sub-urban parts cannot be considered remote compared to the schools which are quite distant from the concerned town. Then the rural areas of towns inter-mix and it is not easy to say that Zone II of this town is separate from Zone II of other town. An example would serve better, say a teacher from Bhadarwah town is to be adjusted in Zone II. Shall he/she be adjusted in tehsil Bhadarwah or in tehsil Doda, of course, in rural area only? But once a choice is made the problems stares you in the face. If a teacher is adjusted in remote area of Doda tehsil he is essentially displaced from the home locality. And when he/she needs be transferred after completing the tenure there he/she cannot be adjusted in Zone II again and Bhadarwah Zone I is so small that you cannot adjust all the teachers. It may be said that under proper rotation this problem can be solved but the inequality is so great that all calculations are likely to fail. And if all the teachers from Bhadarwah are to be adjusted in Bhadarwah tehsil only then there will be excess. And if teacher from Bhadarwah is adjusted in Bhadarwah the other areas suffer due to non-availability of teachers.
Follow our WhatsApp channel