View Full Version : CSR -II Produced By Moily

05-01-2009, 08:55 PM
First of all, I must thank Mr Raman of Gconnect to open a forum for this topic.

Civil service Reforms, many aver is a contradiction in terms. Civil servants have everything going for them. Politicians have to face elections once in five years or more often and can lose their positions. Civil servants on the other hand have iron clad security guaranteed under articles of the Constitution. . Politicians when they become ministers may not have any knowledge of the subjects dealt with by their ministry. In the upper reaches of the government too the civil servants coming from the All India Service like the IAS (Indian Administrative Service) too need not have any knowledge of the subject. Politicians as ministers or their parties leaders may be surrounded by protesters from the aam admi class demanding civic services, like electricity, road and water. The civil servant who twiddled his thumbs and slept on 'papers under consideration', tied the red tape tighter received his promotions according to a prearranged time plan ;- 4 years Senior Time Scale, 9 years Director, 16 years ( for IAS Only) Joint Secretary, 25 Years Addl Secretary and 30 years Secretary can afford to remain as anonymous as the villains in unresolved crime novels. The civil servant who dipped his hand in the till or developed itch hands is protected by armour plates of their own class. The higher one is in the echelon more difficult it is to frame charges or it can be so much delayed through the Old Boys Ties ( Called Batchmate) that one can retire unscathed. Here of course poltical masters and civil servants are on the same side.

India inherited a civil service system from the British which gave supremacy to generalists on the assumption that once people are selected on the basis of a competitive examination at 21 they will be diligent, learn everything on the job, honest and most of all give impartial advice to the political ruling class till they die or fade away. As per the award winning book of Arvind Adiga the only job in which people learn on the job is sex work. By the way I have not seen many IAS people retire actually.

The second premise was that in a federal set up like ours there is a need for a unifying bureaucracy who will be affiliated both to a State of the Union and the Federal government. Most of these assumptions have turned out to be utopian. It is a myth spread by the vested interests that the federal set up owes its success of integration or at least forestalling disintegration to the system of All India services.

With increasing permeation of technology in ever sphere of societal and government activity it is realized that some modicum of knowledge or expertise is necessary in some field of the other. One cannot live by manipulation alone. The maturing of our concept of India as a single nation owes its success more to the citizens, educationists and reviled politicians than the paid cadre of bureaucrats.

The civil servants in general and the members of the IAS in particular have stonewalled successfully any meaningful reforms on performance related incentivisation, any alteration to dislodge the ironclad security, and adding to the pool of talent to the top positions for the last several decades. Thus every one who enters the IAS can reach the top post of secretary regardless of area of knowledge, performance by sheer efflux of time and seniority. Only exceptions are those who fall by the way side for misconduct unrelated to the work area or very unfortunate chaps who are indicted by some Judicial commission or the other during civil riots.

One of the far reaching reforms recommended by the First Administrative Reforms Commission in 1963 to break this stranglehold of the prestige group was to make the IAS as a functional service just as the other central services and open up posts of Joint Secretary and above for open competition among all services and allowing lateral entry. This report must have gathered tons of dust and the only time it must have been brought down from the records room must be recently in 2008 when the Second Administrative Reforms Commission under Veerappa Moily wanted to trace the anthropology of administrative reforms in 2008.

In any case the report of Second Administrative Reforms Commission is out. It is available in arc.gov.in. Tenth Report in pdf files.

On a cursory reading my impression is that it emphasizes more on structural aspects of civil service careers than dwell on citizen centric governance by the civil servants. Although it talks about domain expertise it appears to ignore the rightful place of technologists, engineers, scientists and doctors ( medical) needed for delivering quality service to citizens as well as rendering policy advice to the political masters.

I hope those who are interested in civil service reforms academic, though the value of such interest may be since no politician whose sights are always set on the next election or bye-election is likely to read it ever , are requested to read the report and give their views. Meanwhile I shall seek the indulgence of Gconnent Members Senior and Junior to bear with me as and when I try to share my views chapter by chapter over a period.

06-01-2009, 06:43 PM
Dear Shri Sundaram

I am excited at your wonderful prologue which clearly makes a good beginning for a great amount of ready information for the benefit of many readers here in Gconnect.

People like me - who are poor readers (I have a very very bad habit-I normally read the title- top line- bottom line etc and unless interesting I dont go inside the text!) will be happy to get a ready-made menu!

Already I have utilised portions of your last-but-one paragraph for incorporating in one of my postings in the thread on Scientists/ Engineers!



07-01-2009, 06:52 AM
Dear All

Let me have the privilege of using the interim time (with due permission from- Shri Sundaram) before he starts.

I was attracted by the 4th Report wh is entitled "Ethics in Governance"

Concluding sentecnce- whatever it means is eye-catching!

"“Rivers do not drink their waters themselves, nor do trees eat their fruit, nor
do the clouds eat the grains raised by them. The wealth of the noble is used solely
for the benefit of others.”

Can somebody elaborate what it may mean to people like us?

What Ethics does the above sentence relate to in Governance?



19-01-2009, 04:07 PM
The second Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC), which is headed by Veerappa Moily, has suggested formulating a three-year course for students who have completed Class 12 to train civil service aspirants.

In its report, “Refurbishing of Personnel Administration,” the ARC has suggested that Class 12 students should be selected for the course, which is designed to meet the requirements of the “modern and responsive civil service”.

“The purpose is that if the school pass-outs are selected for career in civil service, they will come with more commitment and a right attitude to serve,” Moily told a news agency. A national-level test conducted by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), on the lines of the test for admission into the National Defence Academy (NDA), will be held to select the best of the candidates. The existing age criteria would be accordingly lowered.

The report says candidates would have to pursue a three-year course drawn up by National Institutes of Public Administrations (NIPA), which must be set up to conduct bachelor’s degree courses in public administration or management.

Yearly assessment test would be conducted and candidates awarded graduation degrees. In the long run, these centres would evolve as sources of civil services aspirants, said Moily, adding that the candidates’ commitment and attitude can also be assessed in such a set-up.

“Those who do not want to pursue a career in civil services will be permitted to exit and pursue their interest elsewhere,” said Moily. Those who wish to continue would be given service allotments and would undergo a two-year service-specific course in Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel National Police Academy (SVPNPA) for Indian Police Service (IPS) and National Academy of Direct Taxes (NADT) for Indian Revenue Service (IRS).

At the end of the course, the candidates would be given cadre allotment on the basis of merit and preference.

“The new system would help recruit potential civil servants at a young age and groom them when they are still in their formative years,” said Moily. This would also enable the government to tap into a much bigger resource pool than the present recruitment system.

It would also end the present “undesirable” system of coaching institutes that have sprung up across the country to prepare aspirants, he said.

21-01-2009, 09:41 AM
This article in the Central Chronicle by Dhurjati Mukherjea published from Jabalpur argues unexceptionally for greater attention to be paid to lower levels in reforms for improving the service to citizens. It also points out the tendency of Scientists gravitating towards offices deserting field work. I ,too, think the Administrative Reforms of Veerappa Moliy has not paid adequate attention to work, productivity and efficiency at below Group A levels.

At a time when the country is plagued by serial blasts and the people losing faith in the polity, perhaps a better administrative functioning could help assuage both anger and a sense of helplessness amongst the common man. As economic liberalization in the 90's helped gearing up the economy to some extent, paying serious attention to administrative reforms may just give the desired dividends.

While admitting that some scattered improvement in the administrative functioning in cities may have taken place, the overall working of the State apparatus leaves much to be desired. Sadly, the people's perception of government babus is they don't carry out duties sincerely, keep matters pending and are under no pressure from their bosses to change. As a result, the common man is left to run from pillar to post. Despite severe criticism the bureaucratic system simply doesn't work the way it should.

Clearly, the implementation of the principle of 'perform or perish', as recommended by the Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) would undoubtedly go a long way in injecting efficiency in the system and making it responsive to the needs of the people. In its 377-page report titled 'Refurbishing of Personnel Administration', the ARC sought reviews be undertaken after 14 and 20 years of service and sacking after 20 years, if the government servant is found unfit. It favoured that new recruitment should be for 20 years and continuation of service beyond that period would depend on intensive reviews.

Besides, recommending a performance-based system for bureaucrats, the ARC came out with a number of radical proposals for revamping the Civil Service examination system, including changing the age criteria, subject requirements at the graduation level for aspirants of IAS, IFS, IPS and Group-A and B Central services.

These recommendations are truly crucial at this point of time, specially the need to undertake reviews of functioning of all government servants, whether officer or staff, after 14, 20 and 25 years of service. While reviews have been suggested for officers, the working of staff needs to be scrutinized and linked to performance. After the implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission, pay and emoluments of staff from the rank of 'Assistant' onwards have increased considerably and such people have to discharge their functions in tune with the changing times and its requirements thereof.

The problems affecting the working in government offices can be categorized as: late and irregular attendance of both officers and staff; no specific targets regarding the work to be accomplished in a given period of time; gross inefficiency and corruption in departments dealing with public work; no adherence to the formula of 'right man for the right job' and incompetent (and also corrupt) officials put in important/lucrative positions because of connections with higher-ups, including senior bureaucrats and politicians.

Add to the above the category of scientific officers carrying out administrative functions for years together thus neglecting the work they are appointed for; officials, whether of scientific or intelligence departments, neglecting field work and preferring to sit in head offices in front of the computer; and little initiative in most government departments to equip officers and staff with training and orientation courses.

While most of the problems are well-known, senior officers are reluctant to take any action. This is so because there is neither such precedence by his predecessors nor officials at the top, who are retiring after a few months would like to risk confrontation with the staff unions or associations. Not only does the staff and junior officers go scot-free but they are assured a salary at the end of the month. There is absolutely no link with performance.

In fact, a small section of those who work - say 30 or 35 per cent - are sometimes rebuked because of slow performance and/or for mistakes committed, while those who prefer not to work or are habitual absentees enjoy "a care-free" government job. Regrettably, till date performance has never been linked to annual increments or promotion, at least till senior Class A level, a time when officials are young and should give their best output.

A few years ago, the government reduced casual leave from 12 to 8 days a year, but it did not have any impact as staff in a government office enjoys at least 20 days of such leave, if not more. According to an estimate, crores of rupees are thus being lost because the staff worked for a maximum of 4-5 hours or much less against the stipulated eight hours.

The intelligence failure in the country, as is evident from the serial blasts in many metropolitan cities of the country, could be attributed to the lack of initiative of junior officers to do field duty and collect correct information. There is need to inject a degree of efficiency, alertness and performance into an apparatus that simply has not delivered on these scores for decades.

A retired intelligence officer alleged that the situation is deteriorating day-by-day because of a lack of devotion to duty and the reluctance to go out in the field. Moreover, he maintained that most officers, particularly women, prefer to sit in their offices and prepare or compile reports from newspaper dispatches or news agencies rather than add any intrinsic intelligence value.

In most scientific departments, it has been seen that a majority of young officers are reluctant to go to the field to collect data and instead look for postings at the headquarters. If, however, they are requested to undergo training and go out to the field, it is only for a short period.

Moreover, it has been found that many scientific officers in offices such as the Geological Survey of India are largely engaged in administration instead of scientific work. The urge to collect data and prepare research papers based on scientific work is mostly absent amongst a major section. There is also a perception that women officers show reluctance to attend training or go out to the field largely as such no action can be taken against them. As a result, the scientific output of the country is quite low compared to the educated population of the country.

What can be done? For one, in offices, which have public dealings, complaint registers should be made available outside counters so that grievances could be easily recorded. If prompt action is taken, a message would go down, which in turn would help in increasing efficiency in operations and curbing corruption.

At the end, strict adherence to discipline, rewarding performance and proper training of officials are very much imperative. Discipline must be inculcated through motivational training and if that doesn't work, strong action as per rules needs to be taken. Training must be imparted to those who seek it and other than specialized agencies involved department officials may also be engaged. It has rightly been pointed out that every government officer must not only undergo mandatory training at the induction stage but also periodically in the span of his or her career.

The most important aspect is rewarding performance, which unfortunately is absent in government departments. The recent recommendation of the Sixth Pay Commission that 20 per cent of officials could be given additional increments, based on certain efficiency criteria, is unlikely to work. The fear is that the bosses would refrain from favouring the "more efficient staff" under fear of resistance by unions and some colleagues. The additional incentive or increments need to be assessed by an outside agency or by concerned ministry officials so that others may follow suit.

Importantly, the government has been harping on 'good governance' since the start of the millennium. However, now is the time to enforce it with an iron hand. If necessary, committees or a new agency, both at the Central and State levels, could be set up to ensure proper functioning of the system and implementation of the ARC recommendations. Unless strict action is taken against those who prefer to play hooky and avoid duties, the country's development and growth prospects will continue to be sluggish.

24-01-2009, 04:10 PM
Dear Shri Sundaram

I am excited at your wonderful prologue which clearly makes a good beginning for a great amount of ready information for the benefit of many readers here in Gconnect.

People like me - who are poor readers (I have a very very bad habit-I normally read the title- top line- bottom line etc and unless interesting I dont go inside the text!) will be happy to get a ready-made menu!

Already I have utilised portions of your last-but-one paragraph for incorporating in one of my postings in the thread on Scientists/ Engineers!



Dearn friends,

I reproduce below the text of a report seen somwher and a copy kept in my coumputer for reference:
Sack Govt staff `unfit' after 20 years: Moily panel

New Delhi: Suggesting drastic changes in the service rules of government servants, an official panel headed by senior Congress leader M. Veerappa Moily has recommended that government servants should be sacked after 20 years of service if found unfit to continue.

The Second Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC), in its latest report released Friday, suggested two intensive reviews to make civil servants accountable.

In its report 'Refurbishing of Personnel Administration', the commission said the first review should be at 14 years and inform the public servant about his/her strengths and shortcomings. The second review should be at 20 years, and assess the fitness of the official for continuing in service.

"The services of public servants, who are found to be unfit after the second review at 20 years, should be discontinued. A provision regarding this should be made in the proposed Civil Services Law," the ARC said.

In its 377-page report, it said that for new appointments, it should be provided that the period of employment shall be for 20 years. "Further continuance in government service would depend upon the outcome of the intensive performance reviews," it said.

In another major change, the Moily Commission suggested that civil services aspirants in the general category should get only three chances, one less than they are allowed at present, to take the Union Public Service Commission examination.

It said that OBC candidates should get five chances, two less than present, while SC/ST candidates who have no ceiling now on the number of times they can appear for the UPSC, should get six chances.

The report also favoured reducing the upper age limit for the Civil Services Examination from 30 to 25 years for general candidates, from 33 to 28 years for the OBC, and from 35 to 29 years for SC/ST aspirants. The minimum age remains at 21.

Physically challenged aspirants, who are at present allowed unlimited attempts, should be allowed only six attempts, the commission said.

Physically challenged aspirants would be able to appear only up to the age of 29 years, compared to 40 years for those belonging to general category, 43 years in OBC category and 45 years in SC/ST category at present.

The report said every government servant should undergo a mandatory training at the induction stage and also periodically during his/her career.

The successful completion of this training should be a minimum necessary condition for confirmation in service and subsequent promotions.

It suggested that all civil servants should undergo mandatory training before each promotion and each officer should be evaluated after each training programme.

The panel also favoured introduction of a formal degree course in public policy and management in the higher education curriculum for a person seeking a career in civil services.

"This would also discourage the system of coaching centres which have tended to distort the formal education system," the report said.

Describing the recommendations as "most revolutionary", ARC chairman M. Veerappa Moily said the commission has recommended a post-school grooming system for civil services aspirants.

The panel recommended that the government establish National Institutes of Public Administration to run a Bachelors' Degree course in public administration.

In the long term, these specialised centres of excellence would evolve as a major sources of civil services recruitment, it said.

Besides, selected central and other universities should be assisted to offer such graduate level programmes in public administration, the report said.

The commission also recommended that graduates in other disciplines would also be eligible to appear in civil services examination provided they completed a 'bridge course' in public administration.

An expert committee would work out modalities of the proposed system, it said, adding that the special courses should be started in a few institutions from the coming academic year.

24-01-2009, 04:19 PM
Dear friends,

An artist can draw in his canvass 100 Taj Mahals which do not touch the ground.

But 100 Shajahans can't build a SINGLE Taj Mahal without touching ground.

Can we bring light by removing darkness? Or we have to light a lamp to bring light?

Where we will reach once we start seaching for unfitness of employees?

The yearly reviews are alredy vogue. We were not given any value for this so far?

Once we have selected a most fit person through exam, who is responsible if he became unifit on review?

Each case of unfitness will definitely be subjected to judicial review at the apex leve since no one will accept that he is unfit. Even in the final verdit, he found to be unfit, how can he live in this society with a brand 'unfit' ?


What will be the fate of the report?

With regards,


badri mannargudi
24-01-2009, 11:57 PM
Dear friends,

An artist can draw in his canvass 100 Taj Mahals which do not touch the ground.

But 100 Shajahans can't build a SINGLE Taj Mahal without touching ground.

Can we bring light by removing darkness? Or we have to light a lamp to bring light?

Where we will reach once we start seaching for unfitness of employees?

The yearly reviews are alredy vogue. We were not given any value for this so far?

Once we have selected a most fit person through exam, who is responsible if he became unifit on review?

Each case of unfitness will definitely be subjected to judicial review at the apex leve since no one will accept that he is unfit. Even in the final verdit, he found to be unfit, how can he live in this society with a brand 'unfit' ?


What will be the fate of the report?

With regards,

Dear friends,
I have gone through the review quoted herein above.
I beg to differ from my learned friend on certain aspects as explained hereinbelow;-
If a person is awarded contract to build a Taj Mahal like building today and and he successfully completes the first phase, namely the foundation, then lack of knowledge, shortage in skill and absence of experience (and what not else) surface and the person (read contractor) stands exposed, he has tobe shown the door and there can not be any room for the contractor to argue that the contract has to be allowed to continue.
As another example, a student who got admission into class 6 can not claim right to go to seventh merely on the plea that he got admission after being declared successful at the written test entrance examination).
If continuance in service is made dependent upon efficience so be it. It is a welcome measure. It is a well conceived notion that 80% of the work is done by 20% of the workforce. Then the remaining 80% workforce has to look for pink slips.
Perhaps, Shree Narayanan is not aware that a system of "Efficiency Bar" existed in the pre 1986 era.
If any injustice is done to any person remedial measures are always available to the right person.
Having said that,to be fair to Shree Narayanan one thing may be noteworthy. While dismissing the plea for parity with private sector, the 6th pay commission cited "Job Security" as one of the aspects for holding parity can not be maintained. If the recommendations of the Reforms Committee are accepted and implemented, 7th CPC may have to find some other reason for dismissing demand for parity with private sector.
With regards,

25-01-2009, 01:14 PM


A. Policy Statement

The University of Texas at Austin is committed to providing a safe workplace for the benefit of the University community. In order to provide a safe work environment, employees must be able to perform their job duties in a safe, secure, productive, and effective manner, and remain able to do so throughout the entire time they are working. Employees who are not fit for duty may present a safety hazard to themselves, to other employees, to the University, or to the public.

B. Scope : This policy applies to all University staff and faculty.

C. Purpose

The purpose of this policy is to establish procedures by which the University will evaluate an employee’s fitness for duty when an employee is:

1. Having observable difficulty performing work duties in a manner that is safe for the employee, for the employee’s coworkers, for the University, or for the public, as determined by the supervisor; or

2. Posing an imminent and serious safety threat to self or others.

D. Definitions

'Fit for duty' means able to perform the duties of the job in a safe, secure, productive, and effective manner.
'Health service provider' is a doctor of medicine or osteopathy, dentist, podiatrist, clinical psychologist, optometrist, nurse practitioner, nurse-midwife, or a licensed clinical social worker that is authorized to practice in the state of Texas or in the state the person resides for persons who reside outside the state of Texas.
'Supervisor' means: for staff, the person to whom they report; and for faculty, their Chair or Dean.

E. Employee Responsibilities
1. Employees are responsible for managing their health in a manner that allows them to safely perform their job responsibilities.
2. Employees must come to work fit for duty and must perform their job responsibilities in a safe, secure, productive, and effective manner during the entire time they are working.
3. Employees are responsible for notifying their supervisors when they are not fit for duty.
4. Employees are responsible for notifying the supervisor when they observe a coworker acting in a manner that indicates the coworker may be unfit for duty. If the supervisor’s behavior is the focus of concern, an employee may inform the upper level manager or may call the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) for further guidance.

F. Employer Responsibilities
1. Supervisors are responsible for observing the attendance, performance, and behavior of the employees they supervise.
2. Supervisors/managers are responsible for following this policy’s procedures when presented with circumstances or knowledge that indicate that an employee may be unfit for duty.
3. Confidentiality of medical records
Any document containing medical information about an employee is considered a medical record and is regarded as confidential. The Employee Assistance Program will maintain medical records in a file separate from all other employee records.

G. Procedures
1. The supervisor who receives reliable information that an employee may be unfit for duty, or through personal observation believes an employee to be unfit for duty, will validate and document the information or observations as soon as is practicable. Actions that may trigger the need to evaluate an employee’s fitness for duty include, but are not limited to, problems with dexterity, coordination, concentration, memory, alertness, vision, speech, inappropriate interactions with coworkers or supervisors, inappropriate reactions to criticism, or suicidal or threatening statements.
2. The supervisor will present the information or observations to the employee at the earliest possible time in order to validate them; and will allow the employee to explain his or her actions, or to correct any mistakes of fact contained in the description of those actions. The supervisor will then determine whether the employee should leave the workplace immediately for safety reasons.
3. In situations where there is a basis to think that a crime may have been committed and/or the employee is making threats to harm himself or herself or others, or is acting in a manner that is immediately dangerous to himself or herself or others, the supervisor shall contact The University of Texas Police Department. EAP should be consulted regarding the fitness for duty procedure after the immediate safety issue has been addressed.
4. In all other circumstances the supervisor shall take appropriate action, including contacting EAP during the 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. workday, as soon as possible after he or she receives reports and validates or personally observes an employee’s unfit behavior. (For situations arising outside the 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. workday, the supervisor/manager will make a determination of whether the employee should leave the workplace immediately for safety reasons. EAP should then be contacted at the beginning of the next business day.)
5. Based on the descriptions provided by the supervisor, EAP will determine whether a fitness for duty evaluation is required and, if so, the type of evaluation needed and the type of health service provider to make the evaluation. EAP will then provide a form to the supervisor containing that information, and the supervisor will convey the form to the employee. Human Resource Services (HRS) Leave Management may also be consulted to aid in determining the type of leave to be used pending a complete assessment of the situation.
6. EAP will provide a form for the designated health service provider for completion to certify whether the employee is fit to return to work. The health service provider form will include a behavioral description of the circumstances leading to the request for evaluation, and a list of the employee’s relevant duties. EAP may facilitate communication with the health service provider as necessary.
7. In most cases, the employee will be responsible for the cost of the fitness for duty evaluation not covered by the employee’s health plan.
8. Based on information provided by the health service provider, EAP will advise the supervisor whether the employee should return to work and, if so, the conditions of return, including whether the employee must attend a reentry conference with the supervisor and EAP, and whether additional follow-up meetings are necessary. The final decision on whether a provider’s certification will be accepted lies with the employee’s departmental management. A second independent health service provider certification may be requested in some cases. The employer will be responsible for the cost of the second independent provider’s certification.
9. The employee must comply with all aspects of the fitness for duty and evaluation procedures, including furnishing necessary consent and release forms to the health service provider. Noncompliance may be grounds for disciplinary action up to and including termination. Information will be requested from the health service provider regarding work restrictions that may be required upon the employee’s return to work
10. Application of this policy is not intended as a substitute for other University policies or procedures related to performance; nor is it intended as a substitute for discipline. Situations involving violations of University policies or practices may result in disciplinary action being taken.

For Assistance: Questions regarding fitness for duty should be directed to the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) at (512) 471-3366, or to their website: http://www.utexas.edu/hr/eap.

25-01-2009, 01:19 PM
Dear friends,

The basic intention behind appointing the reforms committee is to ensure good governance for which each employees should be fit for duty. Any unfitness for doing duty is required to attended immediately and not to wait till a review after 14 years from the entry in service. If we allow an unfit employee for another six years for a final good bye, what will be the fate of the co-workers, the govt, the public, and ultimately the system?

I would like to draw your attention to a policy paper 'fitness for duty' in respect of the employees of University of Texas at Austin which I placed before in my previous posting:

When we are approaching for major changes, it is important to ensure the continuity and the positive aspects of the present system. Assumptions and presumptions should not a basis for taking decisions relating to the future of our country.

With regards,


25-01-2009, 09:54 PM
Dear Mr Badri/ Mr Narayanan,

Perhaps you are not aware that examinations conducted for selctions to the direct Gr A posts by the Union agency itself has such a great weakness- wh you people are not perhaps fully aware of!

In Mr N's posting at sl no 7, aspects of 'fit' , ACRs etc have been raised.

In Govt of India's services - in many departments- you can forget about these things. They have no value.

I thought my calssification of alfa-alfa nomenclature was understood!

Your weightage for fitness/ ACRs etc will have relevance if you are dealing with "equals" on all aspects.

Suppose -I get a selection list from the Union agency- with the remark- that the listed candidates- out of a Gr A competetion exam have not performed upto even qualifying standards- yet they have to be listed (for compulsive reasons)- (can not be put in black and white)-and the list is sent to the concerned Deptt. for appointments to Gr A posts!.What will be your reaction?

The dictate is given that they have to be coached further, trained up to the required standards and then assigned the duties. ONUS RESTS ON THE DEPTT.WHICH HAS ASKED FOR THE REQUIRED NO. OF POSTS! ADDED RESPONSIBILITIES ARE CONSEQUENTIAL HAZARDS!

THIS WAS A GREAT SHOCK TO PERSONS LIKE ME (who always believed in merirt- respected merit) and THE IRONY OF THE SITUATION WAS I HAD TO PROCESS SUCH CASES ON BEHALF OF MY DG and when many of them reported for joining GR A posts, I HAD TO PERFORM THE OATH TAKING ORDEAL!

Therefore the whole system of reforms will be nice on paper- eloquently manuscripted by professionals (hired/paid?)- authored by eminents- only to be consigned to where they are destined to be! GOVT. DEPTTS ARE NOT AMENABLE TO REFORMS- ON THE CONTRARY REFORMS MUST BE SCRIPTED TO SUIT "THE FUTURE PROFILES" OF GOVT. DEPTTS/SERVICES. I and you - if we join together- we can write better on "MORE REALISTIC REFORMS".

This is yet one more Commisssion! More important Commission's Reports have not seen the light of the day in this country!