En-masse contractual appointments

The Act XII 0f 1974 provides scope for contractual appointments. The framers of this piece of law had visualised its use only for persons having proven efficiency, integrity and professional capability in exceptional and compelling circumstances of indispensability and in the public interest. Contractual appointments were made by all previous governments. But what alarms people is the recent rise in the number of appointments on contract that has surpassed all previous records. An upper limit imposed earlier restricting contractual appointments at ten percent of the duty posts has been scrapped by the present government that paved the way for unfettered appointments on contract. Skepticism abounds as to, barring a few exceptions, how many of the horde of present day contractual appointees at various tiers of administration are indispensable and had displayed extra ordinary performance in their service career. Failure on the part of the government to follow a transparent policy for wholesale contractual appointments has thus led people to believe that these are done on purely partisan or some 'other' considerations. The beneficiaries are well aware of this reality and the message has well permeated through down the ladder to the upcoming retirees many of whom are no less eager to get a share of the patronage. The race for largesse at times is so vividly exposed that it breeds ill feelings, disrespect and often generates distrust for the seniors.

Had the contract services were only a temporary phenomenon to meet the sudden vacuum at the top tiers, then there should have been definite back-up policies of the government to overcome this impasse within a short span of time. For that, there are two essential pre-requisites which should have been unfailingly in operation. First, as an immediate measure, qualified officers at the next below levels should have been promoted on merit-cum-experience basis to fill in the vacuum. The promotion system should have been so designed that would let officers with exceptional qualities, professional capabilities and adequate experience to be promoted to occupy the top positions. But the Superior Selection Board (SSB) could not work freely, least to speak of administering a credible promotion policy that could ensure grooming of a group of officers capable of shouldering higher responsibility based on merit, efficiency and seniority. The notion of unfairness in promotion has further been accentuated by the recent promotions of significant number of officials under the President's quota (bypassing SSB) who were otherwise not found fit for promotion by the SSB as per required norms. And this happened at a time when officers possessing required qualifications and enough seniority were denied promotion without assigning any plausible reasons for their supersession. The promotion criterion is frequently changed to benefit individuals or groups/batches that have the ears of the decision makers in the power corridor.

SSB's failure to ensure promotion on merit-cum-seniority at various tiers will thus contribute to generate an artificial demand for capable officers that will be used to justify contractual appointments in many more years to come.

Secondly, as a long term measure, training should have been given the top most priority to infuse professionalism in civil service. In fact, we are miles behind in respect of HRD and career planning for civil servants. Often we were amazed at the high professionalism, articulate presentation and depth of home work done by counterparts from neighbouring countries in international/bilateral encounters vis-à-vis poor performance of our civil servants. No tangible and rigorous training programmes (local and foreign) exist at the national level and if this situation persists, the dearth of capable civil servants for top postings will continue unabated which will, all the more, be a very convenient excuse for perpetuating contractual appointments. And obviously not on merit but on some other considerations.

At a seminar held in Dhaka a top bureaucrat reportedly lamented (D.S Nov. 09, 2004) that a plan to train up 5000 young and talented civil bureaucrats abroad could not be pushed through the Planning Commission despite his best efforts as donors showed no interest to fund it. Overseas training and exposures for country's civil servants is a sine-qua-non for our existence in the fiercely competitive world of today. But for a vital core sector like HRD it is unlikely to get foreign direct assistance. It may be recalled that recognising this reality a programme was initiated in late nineties under the Planning Ministry to train officers and other professionals abroad with our own resources without waiting for foreign assistant to come. But in November 2001, the scheme was abruptly scrapped, scholarships cancelled and the trainee officers were recalled. This capricious decision of the government threw these officers into an utterly difficult situation, caused wastage of country's resources and surprised foreign institutions in which they were undergoing training. Repudiation of the commitment of one government by its successor could not shore up the image of the country. Had this foreign training programme not been scrapped, many trained civil servants would have been at work by now. If that top civil servant could have declared in the said seminar that the abandoned training programme for civil servants has been revived in the greater interest of the country he would have been remembered for this piece of contribution. Thus the conspicuous absence of any short- or long-term supportive plans of the government fails to justify the thesis that unfettered contractual appointments are only a stop-gap arrangement to meet an exigency.

It is said that for each contractual appointment at the level of secretary promotion of five officers down the line are blocked. In case of the head of a department the number of affected persons down the line are more. Officers at mid-level completing about 20 years of service are shattered at the bleak prospect of promotions caused by an en-masse contractual appointments. For administrative expediency, perhaps there may be genuine justification for a limited number contractual appointments for a few selective posts like that of cabinet secretary, principal secretary, finance secretary, one or two more alike and some technical and specialised positions. Likewise, a few diplomatic assignments may be justified. But the bonanza of contractual appointments that have been unleashed recently added collateral price tags in terms of acute frustration, loss of initiative and demoralising of administration. Hence contracts should be awarded sparingly to minimise its disguised colossal cost.

The emerging scenario resulting from en-masse contractual appointment has prompted many to believe that we are close to a corrupt version of the Spoils System of bureaucracy. In the USA, as a new president enters the White House, over 4000 officials change positions in the government. That is the constitutional practice in that country. If that is in mind then number of posts hitherto been earmarked for the cadre service be brought out of the cadre composition and declared to be filled in through open bidding. This will, at least give a semblance of fair play and rule of law.

But such a vital change in the pattern of country's statutory civil service cannot be brought about by a stroke of pen. There has to be a national debate for any change of bureaucracy in that direction. Let the citizens apply their wisdom to decide whether they should opt for an un-charted Spoils System and allow the civil service to be a part of national politics or they should stand for a non-partisan permanent civil service that will be regulated by fixed inviolable rules, work without fear or favour, and maintain continuity of governments. The ramification of a politicised civil service has been discussed in a separate write-up (DS, January13, 2005).

It may be noted that the Spoils System thrives on a strong mechanism of accountability, checks and balances and above all, a guarantee of rule of law. But given the socio-political background, complicated legal system and the level of education prevalent in the country any shift towards the Spoils System is fraught with enormous danger. In such a situation of loose accountability the incumbent beneficiary may be tempted to take the job/assignment as an one-shot affair and get away with his wrong-doings once the term of the government is over. The purpose of mentioning this controversial system as an alternative is not to promote the system but only to point out the direction at which the country's civil administration is sliding quietly.

A civil servant is a product of law who cannot be turned into a commodity to be traded. Resorting to unrestricted contractual appointments in a non-transparent manner has transgressed bounds of justice, fair play and good governance. This culture must be dismantled to contain growing discontent, suspicion and mistrust in the ranks and files of the bureaucracy. The onus of restoring the civil service to its desirable character rests squarely with the politicians, the civil society and the top-brasses of bureaucracy.

Ahmad Mahmudur Raza Chowdhury is a former civil servant. (Any comments to: rcmahmud@yahoo.com)