New Delhi
23 August 2007
Barely a month after the UPA Government came to power on May 22,
2004, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's office "revised" the procedure for appointment
of officials in the Central Government and arrogated rpt arrogated to itself the powers to
"place" officials of the level of Joint Secretary, Additional Secretary and Secretary. He
also virtually rendered the three-member Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC),
chaired by him, redundant, by requiring only ex-post facto rpt ex-post facto approval of
the Minister of Home Affairs and the minister in-charge of the ministry concerned. The
explanation offered by the government, which has been accepted by the Principal Bench
of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), is that heading a coalition government
necessitated a certain degree of confidentiality in such matters.
The order of the CAT, delivered on August 21 this year in the matter of an application
challenging the appointment of Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon, read: "[The]
confidential files disclosing the manner, in which the procedure for appointment to the
level of Joint Secretary, Additional Secretary and Secretary in the Central Government as
revised by the Prime Minister's directions, was regulated bearing the date of 15.6.2004,
also had been made available. Such norms have become operational from June 2004
onwards. Heading a coalition government, necessity for confidential matters, within
permissible limits, would have been very much behind the thought process."
The CAT has said that on June 15, 2004, the Prime Minister's Office had finalised and
prescribed procedure that were to be followed in respect of appointments to the post of
Joint Secretaries and above.
The order given by Justice M Ramachandran and Mrs Neena Ranjan also read: "The
procedure as was in vogue appears to have been simplified and streamlined. The
Cabinet Secretariat is required to initiate the proposal on the basis of available
empanelled officers; Cabinet Secretary has to submit the finalised proposal to PMO for
securing the approval of the Prime Minister. After the formal approval, it could be
notified. Ex-post facto approval of the Minister in-Charge, including that of the MOS
(Minister of State), alone are presently required."
"It is evident that as per the norms in vogue alone, the appointment had been
announced, on 31.8.2006, as it could have been done even before the approval of the
Home Minister, as ex-post facto approval alone is envisaged," the order read, adding: "It
has been pointed out that the rules as existed did not explicitly lay down the procedure
and parameters for identifying an officer in the rank of secretary for appointment as
foreign secretary and admitted flexibility."
The CAT Bench accordingly concluded: "It is evident that the selection to the post of
Foreign Secretary, which cannot be considered as a promotion, as is normally
understood, had been carried out, bearing in mind the relevant parameters for a fair
selection and also in a manner, which was authorised by procedure evolved by
competent authority."
It went on to observe that "a placement of an officer whereby he is required to discharge
duties of a higher calibre, but without change in pay scale, hardly can be a case of
promotion".
The CAT dismissed senior IFS officer Veena Sikri's application challenging the
appointment of Mr Shivshankar Menon as foreign secretary by superseding 17 officers,
including herself. The Principal Bench of CAT was hearing the application of Ms Sikri, a
1971-batch officer who had alleged that the government's decision to elevate Mr Menon,
a year junior to her, to the top post was in complete violation of "established
procedures". Ms Sikri, in her application filed on July 25, had questioned the Prime
Minister's Office's role in announcing Mr Menon's appointment four days before its
approval by the ACC.
The CAT said that the announcement before ACC approval "was not in violation of the
parameters, which was followed from the year 2004." It suggested that seniority was not
the only relevant factor since neither the rules, regulations or the practice followed,
imposed a duty on the government to go on principles of seniority while appointing the
foreign secretary.
The CAT added: "The attempt was to identify the best person from the cadre, and in the
process, it was, therefore, natural that, the claims on the basis of seniority, had to be
kept low. The DOPT (Department of Personnel and Training) norms referred to by the
applicant, and especially pertaining to the field of choice of limited candidates, could
have been there only in the case of a promotion."
// The Central Administrative Tribunal has concluded that: //
* Appointment of foreign secretary is placement, not promotion;
* government is not duty bound to follow the principle of senority in the appointment of the
foreign secretary;
* the Department of Personnel and Training norms could have been there only in the case
of a promotion;
* procedure for appointment to the level of Joint Secretary, Additional Secretary and
Secretary in the Central Government was revised by the Prime Minister's directions on
June 15, 2004; and
* accordingly, only ex-post facto approval of the Minister in-Charge (of a Ministry) and the
Home Minister are presently required.
No comments:
Post a Comment