20 Jun
When money and influence decide official postings, merit becomes irrelevant, and the common citizen is left to suffer the cost of compromised delivery
Every year, the month of May and June is the transfer season of officers and employees. Detailed policy guidelines have been issued this year by the Government of UP, just like in the past. Yet, once again, the transfers have got mired in controversy. The headlines in the morning newspapers are blaring about corruption and irregular transfers in the stamp and registration department. Evidently, the Minister of State had complained to the Chief Minister, who took cognisance and cancelled the transfers and immediately ordered the removal of the Inspector General stamps who is the head of the department. In a similar vein, the transfers in the health department and some others are under serious scrutiny. The Ministers are at loggerheads with their officers on the transfer issue, and the entire administrative atmosphere has been seriously vitiated.
Transfers are an annual exercise, intended to streamline the administration and ensure that officers are rotated throughout the state, thereby preventing the development of vested interests in any particular place or region. The guidelines issued are above board, and they prescribe a time limit for an officer to stay in a District or a division before she is transferred out. Naturally, not all the officers in the eligibility zone of transfers can be moved out at one go because this would lead to a massive reshuffle, which would cause instability in Governance. Normally, the guidelines prescribe the percentage of officers in a department who should be transferred. The problem arises when there is an arbitrary and partial approach employed in transfers, and also there is a lack of fairness and objectivity in deciding which officer should be transferred where.
The month-long transfer season, which sometimes gets extended, is like a festival season with officers and employees leaving their station of work and running around Ministers, officers and other influencers to either avoid being transferred or get an assignment and place of their choice. In Government, the general rule is that transfers of officers and employees up to the class II level are done at the prerogative of the head of the department (HOD). Transfers of class I officers are done at the State Government level. In the latter case, the Secretary of the department is expected to prepare transfer proposals and get them approved by the departmental Minister. The Minister will have a say in these transfers. However, the situation gets complicated when the Ministers start interfering in class II and below transfers, which are in the domain of the head of the department. In fact, interfering is a mild term. The Ministers believe that all transfers have to be done with their approval, and one finds transfer lists being prepared in the office of the Minister and the head of the department is simply expected to issue orders accordingly under his signature. Similarly, for class I officers, most secretaries avoid conflict and prepare proposals according to the wishes of the Minister concerned. This leads to an ugly situation where allegations of corruption become rampant and good governance goes for a toss.
In the democratic scheme of governance, the Minister, being an elected person, is the boss and the HOD and the Secretary are expected to work under his direction. The political executive is expected to frame policies on the advice of the administrative officers. Thereafter, the execution of the policies is the responsibility of the civil servants. To deliver public services to the citizens in the desired manner, the civil service has to ensure effective execution. This is possible only if the HOD and the secretary concerned have control over their team of officers because it is through them that results and outcomes will be achieved. Management science is vocal about the concept of having the right man at the right place for getting things done. In any field, a leader is only as good as his team and should have a say in selecting his team members. Can you imagine a situation where the Indian cricket captain goes into a test series with a team which has been selected by the Minister of Sports? I am sure such a team selected due to extraneous pressures would never win a test series. In the same way, when officers are saddled with a team not chosen by them or officers posted on assignments for which they are not suitable, how can we expect them to perform and deliver results?
The situation gets worse when junior officers, because of getting their postings through the Minister, owe their allegiance to him and are not bothered about their HOD. They begin to believe that performance at work is not important and focus their energies on keeping the Minister happy. Also, in cases where they have paid money to get particular postings, they believe that it is their right to extract as much as they can from their assignment. This leads to a high level of corruption and an unethical work culture, which is detrimental to providing public services to the common man. It is because of this kind of situation that unsavoury conflicts and disputes between various levels of officers are becoming common, and it is the citizen who suffers.
In a humorous vein, one can say that in reality, the roles have been reversed with the Ministers focusing on implementation and having little time for policy making, leaving it to the officers to make policies! This inverted structure is not how a democratic government should function. Most conflicts between HODs and Secretaries with their Ministers are on the transfer issue, which leaves a very bad taste in the mouth.
Ideally, the HOD should be left free to choose his team because he has to be accountable for the results. There should be no interference in his jurisdiction. Regarding class I transfers, these can be discussed by the secretary with the Minister concerned. An objective criterion for transfers can be laid down without much difficulty, particularly in this era of computerisation. Technology would ensure that there is impartiality and objectivity in the entire process, and this would send an excellent signal of Good Governance down the line. Transfers should not be treated as an end in themselves but as a means of creating a work ecosystem which would fulfil the expectations of the citizens. This sounds simple enough, but is unlikely to happen because the transfer industry has taken deep roots in the Governance structure, and those who profit in this industry are unlikely to change their ways. The quality of execution will continue to suffer unless the Government concerned has the courage and the conviction to bring about a complete change in this system.
