NEW DELHI: Imagine an appraisal system
where you are certain to score 9 out of 10, where you don't even need
to meet your appraiser face-to-face, and where you are pretty sure your
pay packet is going to be largely untouched. Such is the process that
evaluates India's top bureaucrats, and it has all the ingredients that
go into the making of the much-reviled Indian 'system' - red tape
(literally), long delays, and of course, a generous serving of political
interference.
So every April, as KRAs, perks and promotions dominate the chatter in corporate hallways, this silent yet mammoth process of assessment starts in the corridors of power. The Annual Performance Assessment Report (APAR) for the last fiscal has just begun, and is expected to conclude by December.
"Virtually everybody gets 9 out of 10 points. Effectively, performance and appraisal are de-linked," says KM Chandrasekhar, former cabinet secretary, in a scathing indictment of an appraisal system that he had tried to streamline without much success.
Actually, APAR is the post-RTI avatar of the earlier ACR (Annual Confidential Report). Under the new system introduced in 2006, an officer gets a copy of what his superior has written about him, and if he is rated poorly, he is allowed to write a counter-note challenging the original assessment.
In reality, for the appraiser and appraisee, the APAR sheet is yet another 'nada-wala' file being carried by peons from one room to another. After about five months, the file comes back to the officer under review, when he can read his boss' comments.
But there are many instances of missing appraisals that delay the empanelment and promotion processes of bureaucrats.
Poor Rating may Affect Promotions
The empanelment is a process under which officers of the same seniority are assessed on whether they are suitable to be appointed at the level of joint secretary and above, as well as equivalent posts in the government.
Once the appraisal is done, the files need to be kept safely by the cadre-controlling authorities and respective states, but a few files do disappear because of negligence or foul play. If two appraisals of an officer are missing in the previous 10 years, the average of the remaining eight years is factored in for promotion and empanelment.
Also, no officer, whether from the IAS, IPS or IRS, will get any pay hike despite filling a long form with rules running into 150 pages that even describe what "state government" or "promotion" mean. Annual hikes in a Group A officer's salary are limited to the increments in dearness allowance (adjusted to inflation), and a basic salary hike happens only when they are promoted - that may even be 10 years in coming and is dependent on a number of factors, including the numerical strength of the cadre batch.
Nor is there any chance that an officer will get less than 9 points on a scale of 1-10, unless he had fought with his superior. Yet, for each of the 20,000-strong Group A officers, the appraisal remains critical as a poor rating may deny them a foreign posting, and even impact any promotion that may come 10 years down the line. Even 7 out of 10 points are considered quite damaging.
Chandrasekhar, who was India's top bureaucrat for four years between 2007 and 2011, says he had attempted to bring about a few changes during his tenure as cabinet secretary. He had submitted a revised system to the Prime Minister's Office, where he had suggested that the grading of an officer should not be done by his immediate boss, but by a committee of officers including recently retired officers and experts. Further, he suggested that over 20% of officers should not get an outstanding rating under any circumstances.
The current process goes through three layers. A director-level officer, for example, needs to submit his self-appraisal form to a joint secretary, who is his immediate boss. After recording his comments, the JS sends the form to the reviewing authority, in this case an additional secretary. The additional secretary forwards it to the secretary, who is the accepting authority for a director-ranked officer. By the same formula, all appraisals of joint secretaries and above reach the minister's table.
So every April, as KRAs, perks and promotions dominate the chatter in corporate hallways, this silent yet mammoth process of assessment starts in the corridors of power. The Annual Performance Assessment Report (APAR) for the last fiscal has just begun, and is expected to conclude by December.
"Virtually everybody gets 9 out of 10 points. Effectively, performance and appraisal are de-linked," says KM Chandrasekhar, former cabinet secretary, in a scathing indictment of an appraisal system that he had tried to streamline without much success.
Actually, APAR is the post-RTI avatar of the earlier ACR (Annual Confidential Report). Under the new system introduced in 2006, an officer gets a copy of what his superior has written about him, and if he is rated poorly, he is allowed to write a counter-note challenging the original assessment.
In reality, for the appraiser and appraisee, the APAR sheet is yet another 'nada-wala' file being carried by peons from one room to another. After about five months, the file comes back to the officer under review, when he can read his boss' comments.
But there are many instances of missing appraisals that delay the empanelment and promotion processes of bureaucrats.
Poor Rating may Affect Promotions
The empanelment is a process under which officers of the same seniority are assessed on whether they are suitable to be appointed at the level of joint secretary and above, as well as equivalent posts in the government.
Once the appraisal is done, the files need to be kept safely by the cadre-controlling authorities and respective states, but a few files do disappear because of negligence or foul play. If two appraisals of an officer are missing in the previous 10 years, the average of the remaining eight years is factored in for promotion and empanelment.
Also, no officer, whether from the IAS, IPS or IRS, will get any pay hike despite filling a long form with rules running into 150 pages that even describe what "state government" or "promotion" mean. Annual hikes in a Group A officer's salary are limited to the increments in dearness allowance (adjusted to inflation), and a basic salary hike happens only when they are promoted - that may even be 10 years in coming and is dependent on a number of factors, including the numerical strength of the cadre batch.
Nor is there any chance that an officer will get less than 9 points on a scale of 1-10, unless he had fought with his superior. Yet, for each of the 20,000-strong Group A officers, the appraisal remains critical as a poor rating may deny them a foreign posting, and even impact any promotion that may come 10 years down the line. Even 7 out of 10 points are considered quite damaging.
Chandrasekhar, who was India's top bureaucrat for four years between 2007 and 2011, says he had attempted to bring about a few changes during his tenure as cabinet secretary. He had submitted a revised system to the Prime Minister's Office, where he had suggested that the grading of an officer should not be done by his immediate boss, but by a committee of officers including recently retired officers and experts. Further, he suggested that over 20% of officers should not get an outstanding rating under any circumstances.
The current process goes through three layers. A director-level officer, for example, needs to submit his self-appraisal form to a joint secretary, who is his immediate boss. After recording his comments, the JS sends the form to the reviewing authority, in this case an additional secretary. The additional secretary forwards it to the secretary, who is the accepting authority for a director-ranked officer. By the same formula, all appraisals of joint secretaries and above reach the minister's table.
"I think a complete overhaul of the present system is essential and that too, without delay," Chandrasekhar adds.
"If you play ball with the system, you get an outstanding rank, and also plump postings. If you raise questions, disciplinary action will follow," says former cabinet secretary TSR Subramanian, who had served under three prime ministers - Atal Bihari Vajpayee, HD Deve Gowda and IK Gujral.
"Political interference in appraisal and empanelment has always been there. But it has increased 10 times during the past 10 years," Subramanian adds.
Post the Sixth Pay Commission recommendations, the government initiated a plan to make the appraisal process more meaningful by proposing monetary incentives for high performers. But it has remained a non-starter.
"The Performance Evaluation and Management System was introduced primarily to facilitate such qualitative measurement on the basis of which an incentive system could be built. However, this system can work only if there is strong commitment at all levels, including the political level," Chandrasekhar says.
"If you play ball with the system, you get an outstanding rank, and also plump postings. If you raise questions, disciplinary action will follow," says former cabinet secretary TSR Subramanian, who had served under three prime ministers - Atal Bihari Vajpayee, HD Deve Gowda and IK Gujral.
"Political interference in appraisal and empanelment has always been there. But it has increased 10 times during the past 10 years," Subramanian adds.
Post the Sixth Pay Commission recommendations, the government initiated a plan to make the appraisal process more meaningful by proposing monetary incentives for high performers. But it has remained a non-starter.
"The Performance Evaluation and Management System was introduced primarily to facilitate such qualitative measurement on the basis of which an incentive system could be built. However, this system can work only if there is strong commitment at all levels, including the political level," Chandrasekhar says.
Source : http://economictimes.indiatimes.com
OFFICERS SELECTION PROCESS FOR PROMOTION REQUIRES CHANGE IN ORDER TO GET BEST OFFICER AT EVERY STEP ON LADDER OF PROMOTION& FINALLY FOR TOP SLOT.
ReplyDelete1.DEEP SELECTION PROCESS SHOULD BE INTRODUCED FOR ALL PAID BY GOVT & STATE ,SO THAT GOVT MACHINERY FUNCTIONING IS IN GOOD HANDS.
2. PRESENT SYSTEM OF ACR IS DEFUNCT & DOES NOT ALLOW UPRIGHT OFFICER TO COME UP.
3.ACR QUALITIES SHOULD BE WRITTEN ONLY IN ARITHMETIC NUMBER FORM AND NOT IN WORD DESCRIPTION AS IT IS HARDLY USED AND IS WITH LOT OF FLAWS.
4. GRADING SHOULD BE IN 5 POINT LIKERT SCALE FOR TEN BEST QUALITIES EXPECTED.
5.GRADING POINT SHOULD BE AS > POOR-1,AVERAGE-2,GOOD-3,EXCELLENT-4 OUTSTANDING-5
SUM OF THEN AWARD POINTS OF ALL QUALITIES AND AVERAGE THEM OUT WILL BE ACR OF THE INDIVIDUAL BY SUPERIORS, THEN GIVE IT A WEIGHT AGE SAY 70%.
6.SIMILARLY ACR SHOULD BE WRITTEN BY JUNIORS TOO FOR HIS SUPERIORS AS IN ISRAEL ARMY AND GIVE WEIGHT AGE TO IT SAY 20%
7.CENTRAL GOVT PANEL-10 % FOR HIGHER APPOINTMENTS AND FOR LOWER APPOINTMENT AS PER DEPARTMENT FUNCTIONING REQUIREMENT
A] MINISTER SAY FM,RM HM EXTRA 3%.
B] PM/CM 3%
C]PRESIDENT /GOVERNOR 4% ON WHOSE PLEASURE FINALLY ONE IS REQUIRED TO CONTINUE
8.THEN ARRIVE AT AVERAGE % OF ABOVE ACR
9. HAVE DEEP SELECTION FOR ALL OFFICER PAID BY STATE/CENTRAL GOVT
10.NO PEN PICTURE IS REQUIRED IT IS MORE OF GIMMICK THAN ACR.
11. NO LOOP HOLES NO HIDDEN MARKS SHOULD BE OPEN & CLEAR
12 . HAVE COMPUTER BASED SELECTION PROCESS
13. ANY PERSON INVOLVED IN ANY CASE IS NOT TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR SELECTION PROCESS FROM ON SET ,THUS NO POLITICS & NO COURT CASES.
PRESIDENT /GOVERNOR PLEASURE IS FINALLY REQUIRED FOR CONTINUE OF POST.
FINALLY THE ARMY RULE ARMY ACT IPC DEPARTMENT RULES OF CENTER PUBLIC SECTOR ALSO REQUIRE CHANGE
AS WIFE & CHILDREN ENJOY BENEFIT OF PENSION & SERVICES,
THUS THERE IS NEED TO BRING THEM UNDER LAW AS HUSBAND/SPOUSE SO PUNISHMENT SCARE WILL ENSURE FEAR FOR DOING CORRUPTION