Lateral Entry into the Civil Services

Recently, the government has proposed lateral entry into the civil services. While there are several concerns, the idea is neither totally new nor an anathema that should be rejected.

What is the present status of the proposed lateral entry program?

• The Union government released a notification seeking applications to fill in ten government posts at the “Joint Secretary” level.
• This triggered anxiety among the bureaucratic ranks, and a retired bureaucrat even submitted a writ against the notification in the Supreme Court.
• While the bureaucracy obviously feels that its turf is being disrupted, the response from applicants has been overwhelming.
• Some think this as the start of the end of “neutral and impartial” civil services since loyalists are mostly likely to be appointed into the civil services.
• This might also result in “privatisation of the IAS” since private business houses might succeed in putting their people in the services in order to influence policies of the government.
• However, a significant number of people also believe that this is a bold decision to get fresh talent, and that it should be given a chance to prove its effectiveness.

What are the arguments in favour?

• Higher bureaucracy in the secretariat frequently has to evaluate proposals got from specialised departments/corporations.
• Moreover, consultations with other ministries/departments are to be done in order to provide a report to the concerned minister for his final order.
• Therefore, a Joint Secretary to the government has the important function of providing enforceable structure to abstract policy ideas.
• This is an intricate consultative process that needs experience and expertise for which complex and detailed procedures have been formulated.
• This complexity is what created the need for lateral entry into civil services.
• The lateral entry proponents argue that domain specialists can only fit the bill as against generalist career bureaucrats.

What are the arguments against lateral entry?

• A civil service officer, after years of experience at the field level, does obviously become an expert in public systems on his/her own right. Merely being an expert doctor doesn’t equip one with sufficient knowledge to suggest formulation of health policy of the nation.
• Rather than lateral entry, the government should provide short term courses for IAS officers to improve their domain knowledge during their service. Graded training programs could be designed with respect to demands of the governance, the personal interests and ability of current bureaucrats.
• It is also worth considering the ideas that have also been advanced for IAS officers to get work experience and knowledge in different domains.
• The bureaucracy needs to examine why certain officers have become submissive to the political classes in spite of their stature.

It has to be noted that, this trend stays even after retirement, as many lucrative post retirement options have opened up for high profile government officials.

• Specialists like engineers, doctors, agricultural scientists, lawyers have always had a considerable power in the decision-making and implementation.

Besides, Secretaries to the Departments of Atomic Energy, Science & Technology, Health Research, Scientific and Industrial Research and Agricultural Research have always been eminent scientists.

Similarly, in departments like the Railways, Posts, etc., all senior positions are manned by Indian Railway or Postal Service officers.

Therefore, there is nothing very unique in the new initiative except for the fact that it has been planned for a Joint Secretary level entry.

• Also, neither the DoPT nor the concerned Ministries cared to define the ‘domain expertise’. Most of the ten posts open for lateral entry have generalist aspect. Therefore, domain expertise is significant only in a very narrow context. But clearly, there cannot be joint secretaries in every branch of the concerned Ministry.
• Most democracies train their higher bureaucrats to be accountable instead of efficient. A civil servant is careful of answering to a quo warranto writ against any alleged action/inaction. In any case, a civil servant is expected to obey and follow the decisions taken by the political executive. It is doubtful how far will this be practised by lateral entrants.

What is the way forward?

Since the number of such lateral entrants increases over time, there is a high probability that the larger bureaucracy become politically biased.  This fear could have been addressed if the government considers allowing the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) handle the process of recruitment. The government should merely describe the job needs explicitly and the UPSC should search and identify talent that isn’t exist within the system. The lateral entry scheme, if implemented effectively, may strengthen more competitive spirit, and remove the complacency of the higher bureaucrats.