A Double-Edged Sword

The introduction of lateral appointments in India’s bureaucracy has ignited widespread debate, particularly over the glaring absence of reservations for SC, ST, OBC, and EWS categories. The controversy intensified following the recent UPSC advertisement for 45 senior positions, which conspicuously omitted the constitutionally mandated quotas.

A Constitutional Oversight?

The lateral entry system, institutionalized by the Modi government in 2018, was intended to bring transparency and efficiency, ending the opaque practices of the previous regimes. However, the failure to amend the recruitment rules to include reservations for disadvantaged groups has led to widespread criticism. Law Minister Arjun Meghwal and Minister of State Dr. Jitendra Singh have defended the government's stance, but the controversy remains.

Rahul Gandhi, Leader of the Opposition, took to social media to accuse the NDA government of undermining the Constitution by excluding reservations in these appointments. He argued that this move was a direct attack on social justice, accusing the government of side-lining the underprivileged and diluting the representation of SCs, STs, OBCs, and EWS in the higher echelons of bureaucracy.

In response, Arjun Meghwal criticized the Congress for its past practices, highlighting the appointment of former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh as Finance Secretary in 1971 and Montek Ahluwalia as Planning Commission Chairman without following transparent procedures. Meghwal emphasized that the current government had rectified the system by ensuring that all lateral recruitment is now conducted through UPSC, adhering to strict rules and procedures.

The Numbers Tell a Story

Since the inception of the lateral entry system in 2018, the government has received 6,077 applications, leading to the appointment of 63 individuals to senior positions across various ministries. Of these, approximately 35 come from the private sector. While these appointments aim to bring in expertise and fresh perspectives, the exclusion of reservations has overshadowed the intended benefits.

As someone with first-hand experience in public service commissions, I can assert that the backlog of vacancies in proportion to these 63 officials can only be addressed if the government creates new posts specifically for candidates from SC, ST, OBC, and EWS categories. The delay in amending recruitment rules has already caused significant harm, as many eligible candidates may have crossed the age limit.

A Mixed Bag

The introduction of lateral appointments has been met with mixed reactions. While it brings in specialized knowledge and fresh perspectives, it also poses several risks to the traditional bureaucratic structure.

One, Demoralization of Bureaucracy: Traditional bureaucrats, who have risen through the ranks, may feel demoralized seeing lateral entrants appointed to senior positions without undergoing the rigorous training and years of service they have endured. This could lead to a perception that meritocracy is being undermined and create uncertainty regarding career progression.

Two, Integration Challenges: Lateral entrants may struggle to integrate into the established bureaucratic culture, leading to friction with traditional bureaucrats. The resistance to change could impede the implementation of new ideas and reforms, creating a divide between career bureaucrats and lateral entrants.

Third, Potential Conflicts of Interest: Lateral entrants from the private sector may face conflicts of interest, where their decisions could be influenced by their previous affiliations. This raises concerns about policy bias and the potential prioritization of private sector interests over the public good.

Fourth, Accountability and Transparency Issues: Unlike career bureaucrats, lateral entrants might not undergo the same level of public scrutiny and evaluation, leading to concerns about transparency in decision-making. Their lack of deep institutional knowledge could also affect the quality of their decisions, especially in complex policy areas.

Fifth, Impact on Administrative Cohesion: The introduction of lateral entrants at senior levels could fragment authority within the bureaucracy, leading to inefficiencies and delays in policy implementation. Dual reporting structures might emerge, causing confusion and potentially side-lining traditional bureaucrats.

Sixth, Short-Term vs. Long-Term Focus: Lateral entrants, particularly from the private sector, might prioritize short-term gains over long-term institutional stability and public welfare. Their lack of institutional memory could result in decisions that overlook long-term consequences, potentially destabilizing the bureaucracy.

Positive Takeaways

Lateral entry into senior government posts brings several positive takeaways.

Infusion of Expertise: Lateral entry allows professionals with specialized knowledge from the private sector, academia, and other areas to bring their expertise directly into government roles, enhancing decision-making and policy formulation.

Diversification of Perspectives: It introduces fresh perspectives that may not be prevalent within the traditional bureaucratic system. This diversity can lead to more innovative solutions to complex problems.

Increased Efficiency: Professionals from the private sector often bring a results-oriented approach, focusing on efficiency and performance, which can help streamline government processes and improve service delivery.

Bridging Skill Gaps: Lateral entry can address specific skill gaps within the government, particularly in areas like technology, finance, and management, where specialized knowledge is crucial.

Encouragement of Meritocracy: It fosters a meritocratic culture by emphasizing skills and expertise over seniority or tenure, potentially leading to more competent leadership in government. Flexibility in Governance: Lateral entry provides the government with the flexibility to adapt to emerging challenges by quickly bringing in professionals with relevant experience, which is especially valuable in fast-evolving sectors.

Strengthening Public-Private Collaboration: It helps in creating stronger ties between the government and the private sector, enabling better public-private partnerships and collaboration on national projects.

Reducing Red Tape: Professionals entering through lateral entry may not be as constrained by traditional bureaucratic procedures, potentially reducing red tape and expediting decision-making processes.

K.S. Tomar, ex chairperson of Standing Committee of All State Public Service Commissions in India and former Chairman of HP Public Service Commission