Adept differently at fighting any internal controversy from leaking out of its sanctified lifestyles, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) is struggling to quell resistance from younger IFS officials who are questioning what they describe as an opaque process of appointment of ambassadors.
The unrest among these officials is over fresh appointments of as many as 5 promotee officials from IFS B category as ambassadors. These younger IFS officials are now threatening to transport court in opposition to the style during which IFS B, who sign up for carrier as assistants, are being inducted into IFS by MEA.
According to MEA despite the fact that, the problem right here is not appointment of ambassadors but cadre control and old-fashioned recruitment regulations that experience led to speedy tracking of IFS B promotions
The indisputable fact that between 1999 and 2004 the common IFS consumption used to be most effective 12 has exacerbated the placement. However, the recent appointment of ambassadors to five international locations - Cuba, Venezuela, South Sudan, Suriname and Papua New Guinea - has brought to a head the outdated antagonism between IFS and IFS B which festered as a result of MEA's inability to deal with the problem.
One of those just lately appointed ambassadors has not even reached the extent of director. "He is just a deputy secretary level official. Vacancy wasn't even circulated among deputy secretary-level officials in MEA," mentioned an IFS officer leading the agitation.
MEA permits IFS B staff participants to grow to be IFS officials in 12 years. The younger IFS, in addition to their seniors in MEA, blame for this an archaic rule granting 3 years antedating of seniority to IFS B staff. The younger officials mentioned they have been disheartened by the indifference proven by senior MEA government to their plight.
The question which these officials are asking MEA is should an IFS B staff member be given undue precedence for appointment as ambassadors over a immediately recruited (thru due process of UPSC tests) IFS officer.
"Under pressure from IFS B Associations, MEA has conveniently sidelined even UPSC in this process of induction of IFS B to IFS. This could be a big scam in GOI recruitment process, since this is not the trend in any other Group A service," mentioned a gaggle of younger overseas carrier officials in a illustration made to TOI.
TOI spoke to several senior IFS officials on the stage of joint and extra secretary. Most of them agreed that the current state of affairs used to be brought about basically by bad cadre control over the years as a result of promotion regulations and the restricted consumption of IFS in those vital years (1999-2004).
"It's expected that under the current situation, almost 45 people who started in MEA as assistants would be promoted to joint secretary or even more before their retirement," mentioned a senior IFS officer.
"You sure don't want a situation where a section officer ends up holding the position of JS (PAI) or JS (EA)," he added. PAI department handles Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran. EA department offers with international locations like China and Japan.
IFS officials claim despite the fact that that the infighting among younger IFS officials with IFS B isn't just restricted to inter-se seniority.
"The differences are visible in day-to-day functioning as well. The sense of ownership of MEA among young IFS officers is historically low. Reasons are well known. IFS officers are not even able to get their work done in MEA with as much ease as IFS-B officers are seen to be able to ‘manage’ to get their work done," mentioned IFS officials in their illustration.
"Attitude of many senior IFS officers of ‘divide and rule’ does more harm than good. Many Heads of Missions (HoM) appoint IFS B officers as Heads of Chanceries (HoCs head Admin and Finance work of Missions), since normally IFS officers are preferred for political and commercial work, where quality output is needed. IFS B officers are well known for extending undue favours to HoMs; it’s a win-win situation for both HoM as well as IFS B officer. Taking advantage of HoC’s position, IFS-B officers usually indulge in bossing around on young IFS officers," it added.
These younger IFS officials also mentioned that whilst the IFS Association used to be neither recognized nor efficient and, a long way from being conscious of the wishes and considerations of younger IFS officials, used to be performing Association used to be in truth a mouthpiece of decision-makers in MEA.
"On the other hand, IFS-B Association is extremely active and responsive. Elections are help periodically. Any petty issue which concerns IFS-B is raised at highest levels in MEA," mentioned an officer.
The unrest among these officials is over fresh appointments of as many as 5 promotee officials from IFS B category as ambassadors. These younger IFS officials are now threatening to transport court in opposition to the style during which IFS B, who sign up for carrier as assistants, are being inducted into IFS by MEA.
According to MEA despite the fact that, the problem right here is not appointment of ambassadors but cadre control and old-fashioned recruitment regulations that experience led to speedy tracking of IFS B promotions
The indisputable fact that between 1999 and 2004 the common IFS consumption used to be most effective 12 has exacerbated the placement. However, the recent appointment of ambassadors to five international locations - Cuba, Venezuela, South Sudan, Suriname and Papua New Guinea - has brought to a head the outdated antagonism between IFS and IFS B which festered as a result of MEA's inability to deal with the problem.
One of those just lately appointed ambassadors has not even reached the extent of director. "He is just a deputy secretary level official. Vacancy wasn't even circulated among deputy secretary-level officials in MEA," mentioned an IFS officer leading the agitation.
MEA permits IFS B staff participants to grow to be IFS officials in 12 years. The younger IFS, in addition to their seniors in MEA, blame for this an archaic rule granting 3 years antedating of seniority to IFS B staff. The younger officials mentioned they have been disheartened by the indifference proven by senior MEA government to their plight.
The question which these officials are asking MEA is should an IFS B staff member be given undue precedence for appointment as ambassadors over a immediately recruited (thru due process of UPSC tests) IFS officer.
"Under pressure from IFS B Associations, MEA has conveniently sidelined even UPSC in this process of induction of IFS B to IFS. This could be a big scam in GOI recruitment process, since this is not the trend in any other Group A service," mentioned a gaggle of younger overseas carrier officials in a illustration made to TOI.
TOI spoke to several senior IFS officials on the stage of joint and extra secretary. Most of them agreed that the current state of affairs used to be brought about basically by bad cadre control over the years as a result of promotion regulations and the restricted consumption of IFS in those vital years (1999-2004).
"It's expected that under the current situation, almost 45 people who started in MEA as assistants would be promoted to joint secretary or even more before their retirement," mentioned a senior IFS officer.
"You sure don't want a situation where a section officer ends up holding the position of JS (PAI) or JS (EA)," he added. PAI department handles Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran. EA department offers with international locations like China and Japan.
IFS officials claim despite the fact that that the infighting among younger IFS officials with IFS B isn't just restricted to inter-se seniority.
"The differences are visible in day-to-day functioning as well. The sense of ownership of MEA among young IFS officers is historically low. Reasons are well known. IFS officers are not even able to get their work done in MEA with as much ease as IFS-B officers are seen to be able to ‘manage’ to get their work done," mentioned IFS officials in their illustration.
"Attitude of many senior IFS officers of ‘divide and rule’ does more harm than good. Many Heads of Missions (HoM) appoint IFS B officers as Heads of Chanceries (HoCs head Admin and Finance work of Missions), since normally IFS officers are preferred for political and commercial work, where quality output is needed. IFS B officers are well known for extending undue favours to HoMs; it’s a win-win situation for both HoM as well as IFS B officer. Taking advantage of HoC’s position, IFS-B officers usually indulge in bossing around on young IFS officers," it added.
These younger IFS officials also mentioned that whilst the IFS Association used to be neither recognized nor efficient and, a long way from being conscious of the wishes and considerations of younger IFS officials, used to be performing Association used to be in truth a mouthpiece of decision-makers in MEA.
"On the other hand, IFS-B Association is extremely active and responsive. Elections are help periodically. Any petty issue which concerns IFS-B is raised at highest levels in MEA," mentioned an officer.
Uproar in MEA over 'opaque' appointment of ambassadors
![Uproar in MEA over 'opaque' appointment of ambassadors]()
Reviewed by Kailash
on
June 20, 2018
Rating:
