In matters of service issues of Government employees, a temporary, provisional and impromptus approach is neither desirable nor is it loaded with expectations of better performance nor efficiency. It is all the more increasingly unwarranted if such an approach is made as a routine with the officers in the top bureaucracy . Obviously, there could be expected nothing less than an undercurrent of resentment and frustration among the ‘affected’ officers. At least, under the President’s Rule people and administration expect good, matured, effective and lasting plans and decisions taken by the Government instead of resorting to ad hoc measures as generally has been wont with almost all popular Governments governing Jammu and Kashmir.
The question arises as to what problem does the Government find itself confronted with that it has to resort to ad hoc measures and not take lasting and permanent decisions . Needless to mention, ad hoc measures can briefly be identified having characteristics of being averse to planning, a tendency to respond to only very urgent or dire issues rather than the important ones or we could call it a scenario of fire fighting and panic buttoning . We ask as to why, instead, system and procedures are not given precedence and legitimacy and thus goals and targets fixed. Why, for example seniority has not been identified and fixed in majority of such officers of ‘elite category’? Like this, efficient and eligible officers are denied opportunities to hold important positions whereby their decisions and guidance, better output and quality performance could be achieved.
There is no secret of the fact that many aggrieved KAS officers have been driven to file representations at various levels citing glaring instances of bungling having been made in the Apex Department dealing with such matters – the General Administration Department. Seniority list as and whenever issued, has generally been sans prescribed norms or accepted procedures as could be found out from the one issued in the year 2003. The other part of the matter is generally a representation from an aggrieved officers must get a response within a reasonable specified period rather than never disposing off in the manner merited by individual cases. In other words, even after the representation from the aggrieved officers no action was taken, no rectification process was undertaken under advice to those who made representations resulting in the raised issues remaining unresolved.
You keep on not resolving issues and lingering them on and adopting deferring tactics never pay but generate discontentment and resentment and both strike at the roots of performance levels. Why a seniority list of officers is not issued? Why inputs from various departments and offices to update the particulars are not sought by the General Administration Department and made this exercise mandatory? Why the allegations about the officers posted at General Administration Department having ‘managed’ slots for them when none were available, are not probed ? Should transparency and equity become casualties rather than deciding factors for identifying , recording and advising seniority?
We hope that the caution sounded by the Supreme Court of the country in this regard and having advised the General Administrative Department against the practice of ad hoc(ism) rather than the opposite, should have resulted in the changing of this scenario . Still, such seniority lists are issued on piece meal basis only to facilitate adopting different criteria for the ‘ selected and blue eyed’ officers which was only a reflection and a consequence of no tangible , consistent and foolproof personnel policy adopted and practiced by this Government. We hope this scenario to change as fast as it could be possible.
Follow our WhatsApp channel