A growing anxiety has gripped officers of the All India Services regarding their service conditions which leave them at the mercy of the government of the day. This is highlighted by the treatment meted out to senior IAS officer Ashok Khemka who was abruptly transferred as managing director, Haryana Seed Development Corp Ltd., his 43rd transfer in two decades of service.
Khemka clashed with the Congress leadership when, as Inspector-General of Registration and Director General, land consolidation, he began investigating the Robert Vadra-DLF and other suspicious land deals in Haryana. He had complained to the chief secretary that he was given non-cadre posts where the appellate authority was vested in his junior officers.
As the officers seek rules and policies to govern the issue of transfers, promotions, and tenure of postings as a guard against arbitrariness, the astonishing fact that has come to light is that there are no rules and/or regulations for promotion related matters under the All India Services Act 1951. Promotions are made under certain Government guidelines which often contradict the prevalent rules, leaving scope for discretion (unilateralism).
This puts officers committed to institutional integrity at a grave disadvantage. Some feel that the Central Administrative Tribunal should expunge guidelines that contradict the rules and direct the competent authority to frame clear rules and regulations regarding promotion-related matters in conformity with the All India Services Act 1951. An officer associated with the RTI movement has approached the CAT in this regard.
The All India Services have been constituted under Article 312(1) of the Constitution and are hence deemed to be services created by Parliament under this article. They include the Indian Administrative Service, Indian Police Service, and Indian Forest Service. The cadre- controlling authorities are respectively the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions; Ministry of Home Affairs; and Ministry of Environment and Forests.
The All India Services Act, 1951 was promulgated to regulate the recruitment and service conditions of the personnel. A plethora of rules govern pivotal and trivial matters of service, but there are no clear rules for promotion from one rank/grade to the next, hence the need for proper Rules and/or Regulations in accordance with section 3 of the Act.
For appointments to Selection Grade and posts carrying pay above this grade, Rule 3(2)(i) of the Rules, 2007 specify that selection shall be based on merit, as per criteria prescribed by the Central Government with due regard to seniority. But beyond this, there is no definite rule and/or regulation related to promotion of All India Services’ officers.
The Home Ministry’s Letter No. 45020/11/97-IPS.II dated 15.1.1999 outlines “Principles regarding promotion of the members of IPS in the State Cadre”. It merely states, “In order to ensure uniformity of procedure in the matter of appointment and promotion to various grades in the Indian Police Service in all the State cadres in the country, it would be desirable to adhere to the revised guidelines and follow and impose stricter standards of selection as envisaged in the revised guidelines.” There are similar letters for the IAS (No. 20011/4/92-AIS-II dated 28/03/2000) issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions; and for IFS (No. 20019/1/2000-IFS-II, dated 18/11/2002) by the Ministry of Environment and Forests.
The Guidelines attached with these letters moot Screening Committees for promotion to each next rank. These state that, “Each Committee should decide its own method and procedure for objective assessment of the suitability of the candidates.” Further, “The Committee should consider ACRs for equal number of years in respect of all officers falling within the zone of consideration for assessing their suitability for promotion” and “in the case of each officer, an overall grading being given either Fit or Unfit” without specifying the reasons for coming to such a conclusion.
There are several anomalies in this system which can hurt the careers of independent-spirited officers. To begin with, as per section 3 of the AIS Act, 1951, rules for regulation of conditions of service of AIS persons are to be made by the Central Government after consultation with the State Governments concerned and by notification in the Official Gazette, which is then to be laid before each House of Parliament.
This rule has not been followed for promotion related matters of AIS officers. Neither has any Rule being framed for promotion of AIS officers as per section 3(1) of the AIS Act, 1951, nor any consultation undertaken with concerned State Governments. Hence there has not been any notification of these Rules in any Official Gazette.
None of the three letters mentioned above cites the source of their legal entity and legitimacy, and are silent about the legal authority under which they have been issued. This makes the very basis for promotions in the three services at the very least improper, because the Rules say one thing while the letters contradict the Rules.
For instance, the Rules speak of a Benchmark score for overall grading, above which an officer shall be regarded as fit for promotion or empanelment to the next higher grade. But the letters say, “There will be no benchmark for assessing suitability of officers for promotions.”
The Government Guidelines mention Annual Confidential Reports as the basic inputs for assessment, but the Central Government has already passed the AIS (Performance Appraisal Report) Rules, 2007 in supersession of the AIS (Confidential Rolls) Rules, 1970. This creates confusion.
Further, the number of years for which the performance of the officers needs to be evaluated / considered is not specified. The Selection Committees have complete freedom to take as many years for consideration as might suit their purpose for favouring or disfavouring one or more particular officers. Finally, Selection Committees do not have to specify reasons for giving a Fit or Unfit grade to a candidate, so neither objectivity and transparency exists in the entire process.
The Khemka episode highlights the urgency of framing rules to protect officers who carry out their duties without fear or favour.
NitiCentral.com, 18 October 2012
http://www.niticentral.com/2012/10/law-must-protect-inconvenient-officers.html