Do even Committees comprising of Senior Civil Servants appear taking leads from choice of ‘Individual’ Bosses?
The way Recruitment Policies and rules are installed / withdrawn/modified raises many questions
Is it not the duty of the bureaucracy to make the political masters aware of the faulty actions which were taken by Governments and later reviewed by same government to either scrap or modify, could be asked at occasions, And the events right from the then NC- Congress Government in J&K ordering the New recruitment policy( fixed salary mode ) under Order No.257-F of 2011 dated 27-10-2011 ( Cabinet Decision 193/23/11 dated 19-10-2011), then abandoning the same vide order Government order No:156F of 27-06-2014, then PDP-BJP Government coming once again with a similar youth frustrating SRO- 202 of 30-06-2015 (Jammu and Kashmir Special Recruitment Rules, 2015 ) laying doing general conditions of recruitment and service with scope extended beyond non gazetted posts which was followed by( though after pretending ‘sympathetic’ concern for the youth by appointing a committee vide order No.293-JK(GAD) of 2020 Dated 27.02.2020 headed by B.V.R Subrahmanyam Chief Secretary by LG UT of J&K for medicating the ill effects of SRO-202)SROs 192,193,194 of 17-06-2020 that did some window dressing for S.O 184 and SRO-202 but still leaving much to inflict socio economic damages on the youth who would be joining services under Government J&K against substantive graded vacancies/ posts (KAS/KPS/ Engineers Doctors).
No doubt every time such orders are issued by governments that are on the recommendations of the committees formally appointed for the purpose but the way the orders are issued and modified does reflect that the committees are made to ‘propose/recommend’ what is “dictated”.
Otherwise we have best of India’s wisdom in such committees which would surely not propose ‘such’ like unstable and irrational policies and drafts. On 15-06-2020 also it appeared as if the committee appointed under order No.293-JK(GAD) of 2020 Dated 27.02.2020 was ‘given’ a draft of what committee should recommend when a tweet was posted from outside saying “LG Jammu and Kashmir Murmu just now called upon to convey that as suggested to him , SRO 202 will not be indicated in new recruitments rules and for existing appointees under SRO 202, the probation period has been reduced to two years, Must compliment him for prompt response”. S.0 192 was issued after that but it only reduced probation period from 5 to 2 years but a Class IV was still get on date just Rs.15100/ PM for two years as against otherwise due amount of Rs. 21037/pm plus other allowances upto 13500/pm plus 4500/pm in 1styr and annual increment after one year plus DA increases.
NC / Congress Government New Recruitment policy too was said to be based on the recommendations of a high power committee appointed vide order no GAD/ 319 of 2011 dated 10-03-2011 and that was scrapped with a single political stroke without referring to any committee.
LG Manoj Sinha on 7th August 2020 talked of good governance and securing the rights of youth. It was hoped that he will prove with some difference and take on first priority to undo the irrational terms of appointment contained in SRO-202 read with S.O 192 .
Under the original SRO 202 all employees other than such gazetted post, as may be notified by the Government from time to time to be appointed after 30-06-2020 against substantive vacancies had to remain under probation for 5 years with no entitled to annual increments allowances like Dearness Allowance, House Rent Allowance ,CCA, CES,CHS and City Compensatory Allowance till probation is removed without any option for transfer and S.O 192 of 17-06-2020 only reduced the probation period from 5 to 2 years but also made the rules applicable to all posts except any if exempted. Earlier it was surely unfair use of Section-124 J&K Constitution by Governor and after 31-10-2019 use of Art-309 of Constitution of India had been no exception. So much needed to be done even after 17-06-2020.
New LG of UT of J&K Manoj Sinha has immediately on his taking over on 7th August 2020 talked of good governance and securing the rights of youth. It was hoped that Sinha will prove with some difference and would surely receive sympathetically with concern the grievances of the youth already appointed under the provisions of SRO-202 read with S.O 192 and those seeking appointments against advertised posts as being expressed through social groups as well as media. No doubt, may be with his interventions, rules for Class IV employees as in SO 184 of 04-06-2020 have been amended by issuing S,O 351 of 18-11-2020 providing for the applicants to give choice about cadre i.e District, Division, UT in order of preference but still much need be done like :-.
- S.O 192 Date 17-06-2020 Rule – 3 : Pay and allowances during probation period: The rule should be amended allowing all the allowances during probation period and drawl of annual increment after 1 year in case there is nothing against.
- S.O 192 Date 17-06-2020 Rule – 6 ( fixed tenure of 5 years on initial appointment ): It should not be more than the probation period of 2 years. More so it is otherwise also not in wisdom to keep a person posted at same level and place for 5 yrs which could increase possibilities of malpractices. And in case the first appointment is against a reserved vacancy i.e like LAC and RBA the transfer if made will be only in LAC/RBA area unless a period of 7 years is over..
3.When more than on vacancies are advertised it is not generally mentioned that on what basis the first posting orders will be issued, hence there is every likelihood that some favours may be done to some appointees by posting them in soft / easy areas so right of preferred place should be given subject to merit.
- S.O 192 Date 17-06-2020 Rule -4 (1b) ( Discharge during probation ) : The rule says at any time before the expiry of the probation period the appointing authority may at *his discretion, terminate the probation of a probationer and discharge *him from service. The absolute undefined discretion is not fair and hence the text needs review and also the text of the rule/ rules has to be made *gender” free .
5.S.O 193 and S.O 194 of 17-06-2020 need be accordingly amended/ modified.
( * Daya Sagar is a Sr Journalist & analyst of J&K Affairs. [email protected])