Lateral entry: Why appointing specialists to bureaucracy is a good idea

But the government would do well to maintain the overall representation of reserved categories at different levels of bureaucracy as mandated by relevant rules

The Union Public Service Commission’s invitation for applications to fill 45 posts at the joint secretary and director/deputy secretary levels on a contractual basis for three years, extendable to five years, shows the central government’s continued commitment to the idea of lateral entry into the bureaucracy. The advertised positions in various departments and ministries, such as the Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, and the Department of Financial Services in the Ministry of Finance are for specialists. For instance, the Union government is looking for a joint secretary in the Department of Financial Services to look at the digital economy, fintech, and cybersecurity.

There are several reasons why the government should take specialists for certain positions and the idea has been discussed at various points. The Sixth Pay Commission, for instance, noted that to reform the system, aside from lateral entry for senior positions, more result-oriented approaches should be introduced. Further, the NITI Aayog’s three-year agenda and sectoral group of secretaries on governance in their report in 2017 recommended inducting people into the middle and senior levels with the objectives of bringing in fresh talent and augmenting the availability of manpower. According to the government’s reply to Parliament earlier this month, 63 such appointments have been made over the past five years at the levels of joint secretary, director, and deputy secretary. At present, 57 such officers are posted in different ministries and departments.

The reasons for inducting lateral entrants are well known. As the economy grows in size and complexity, effective policy intervention will often need domain knowledge in different areas. Top positions in government are usually manned by officers of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS). Although some officers do develop specialised domain knowledge over time, the usual demand of the service is that of a generalist nature and may not always fit the emerging requirements of policymaking. In any case, the number of IAS officers currently is much lower than the sanctioned strength. Even though there is a need to expand the talent pool by including officers from other services in making appointments at the policymaking level, which is being done to some extent, opening up such positions to specialists from the private sector will increase the chances of finding suitable candidates.

Additionally, since the engagement with people from the private sector is for a limited period, the government can continuously induct fresh talent as needed, depending on the demands of the moment. It should also keep the option of extending the term if required. State governments too should hire talent from the private sector in a similar way. However, for the government to truly benefit from this endeavour and for lateral entrants to succeed, the existing bureaucracy must cooperate with them. For this to happen and to increase the acceptability of lateral entrants within the system, the government will need to do at least two things. First, institutionalise the mechanism by regularly inducting personnel from the private sector. Second, it should communicate in this regard and show how it is benefiting from the mechanism. The move has been criticised by the Opposition on the grounds of reservations, which should have been avoided. These are limited-duration specialist positions, and the condition of reservations could defeat the purpose. The government, however, would do well to maintain the overall representation of reserved categories at different levels of bureaucracy as mandated by relevant rules.