The controversy surrounding IAS probationer Puja Khedkar — her alleged muscling into the service and ghoda, gaadi, ghar tantrums at the Pune collectorate where she had been posted as a trainee — should have people wondering if all is well with our famed Steel Frame. Today, the spotlight is on Khedkar, but soon, the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) itself will have to do some explaining once the report of the additional secretary of the department of personnel and training (DoPT) is made public.
To start with Khedkar, what did she have in mind while applying for disability certification under two different names? For which category of disability did she apply in the first instance, and did she actually switch to another/add another midway as some of the media reporting seems to suggest? How was the non-creamy layer Other Backward Classes (OBC) certification obtained by her when her father’s declared annual income is far beyond the maximum limit of ₹8 lakh per annum? The tehsildar, too, seems to have done his fair share of creative writing at the behest of the Khedkar father-daughter duo.
The Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act 2016 defines a person with a “benchmark disability” as someone with a disability of at least 40% in a specific category on a long-term basis, as certified by a medical authority. The minimum percentage of disability accepted for employment in the “mentally handicapped” category is 35%. In Khedkar’s instance, most will vouch that she is nowhere near a 35% mental disability, one of the two disabilities she cited to push her case.
The Khedkar case may be the tip of the iceberg, though. The civil services selection process is, without doubt, cut-throat with a million-plus annual applicants for a few hundred posts. Candidates, of course, are heavily invested in terms of money and time. On average, they spend two-three years of their prime in mere preparation. Despite the best efforts, making it is not guaranteed even for the brightest. In such a high-stakes set-up, many may be tempted to use the various quotas, including disability, fair or foul, as insurance. The DoPT would do well to enlarge the scope of inquiry and look at all disability cases from this point of view.
The reasons why people would go to any length to get into the civil services are quite clear. It promises prestigious and challenging career options, not only while in service but also after retirement. Many former civil servants are appointed to tribunals, commissions, regulatory authorities, and even gubernatorial positions by the government. Many others receive plum private sector appointments — marquee consulting firms are a new trend — in the hope of leveraging their networks within the government.
While in service, they hold key positions in the central and state governments as well as the public sector undertakings. The civil services are also massively fast-tracked. Where else in the world can a person in their mid-to late-twenties head a district often the size of smaller European countries?
While the DoPT must explain the rationale for allowing mental disability within the disability quota for civil services, which need critical mental capabilities at all junctures, the other key question is about the efficacy of the UPSC exam itself. Is it the best way to select candidates, where the emphasis is on rote learning and half-an-hour interviews? Qualities such as integrity, empathy, positive leadership, and problem-solving are not gauged at all. Unlike, say, in the case of the defence services, there is no aptitude test. As a result, we have people with low emotional quotient, as the case seems to be in the present instance, manning our civil services. The system is open to self-seekers who prioritise the hollow trappings of office, such as the red beacon, and official accommodation.
One way to lower the stakes for applicants and thereby reduce the chances of fraud and rigging would be to bring down the duration of the selection process, perhaps with the use of technology. Another step needed is increasing transparency by publicly disclosing evaluation criteria, marking criteria, and other relevant information at every stage so that challenges can be mounted and resolved. Of course, lateral entry of highly qualified professionalsand domain experts into administrative positions should not merely be in name. A strong lateral entry process will keep civil services on its toes.
The Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration (LBSNAA), where the country’s civil servants are trained for their jobs after clearing the UPSC exam, has a huge role to play. The two years of training lay the foundation for an officer’s future and the way she/he deals with situations. The case studies by Harsh Mander on a poor tribal farmer, Jaktu Gond, remain etched in the minds of many even today, influencing a generation of officers in dealing with poverty-related issues.
We need to fix broken systems rather than fight them. If we have faith in a process and its fairness, we can live with the results. That said, reforming any system requires a multifaceted approach that addresses both structural and procedural issues. With each passing day, an eerie similarity between the lapses that have resulted in the induction of officers who defrauded the selection process and the recent NEET fiasco gets underscored. The result will be the erosion of the public’s trust in these nationwide exams — unfortunate for a vast country like ours that cannot do without these. It is hoped that the DoPT and UPSC do a good job of setting right the system and restoring confidence in it.
Ashok Thakur is former education secretary, and SS Mantha is former chairman, AICTE.The views expressed are personal
