6A. Histroy of my entry to IAS

As I have said elsewhere, during my tenure as the Deputy Secretary in the Health & Family Welfare Department, I got my order of promotion to the IAS for the first time in 1992 after more than 24 years of service in the WBCS (Executive). Govt.  posted me as the Additional Executive Officer of Nadia Zilla Parishad, with the headquarters at Krishnanagar. I had then two school-going daughters. My wife was not accustomed to Calcutta's way of life and lacked the experience to handle day-to-day problems and emergencies. I had no relations of mine anywhere near Calcutta. I couldn’t leave Calcutta leaving the family, nor could I take them to my workplace, as my children were going to school. Besides, I was staying in a Govt. quarter in Calcutta. The Govt. accommodation was in acute shortage in Calcutta at that time. Once I vacated the quarters (which I had obtained at great difficulty with the help of one of my senior colleagues), it would be a yeoman’s task to get one on return to Calcutta. I, therefore, represented my problems to the Govt. in the Home (Personnel & Administrative Reforms) Department. I met the Secretary of the Department and requested her to post me in a district nearer to Calcutta so that I could commute from home, or else I would have to forgo the promotion. My representation went unheeded.  Eventually, I had to forego promotion,1 much against the will of my wife. Govt promptly accepted my letter of foregoing the promotion and cancelled the appointment order. 

I regretfully note that some officers in the same select list managed postings of choice, manipulating political connections. Even later, when appointing officers out of the same 1992-select list in the vacancies caused due to withdrawal from the districts of others previously posted there, Govt did not consider my case, even though I had drawn the attention of the Secretary, Home (Personnel & Administrative Reforms) Department to the matter. Officers junior to me both in the WBCS (Executive) and 1992-select list of IAS got the favour of posting in adjoining districts disregarding me. It was discrimination per se and violated the principle of natural justice.

In West Bengal, the turn for promotion to the IAS comes to the state civil service officers after they had served for 24-25 years in the West Bengal Civil Service though they become eligible after 8 years of service. By that time, these officers get settled in Calcutta, having school or college-going children with them. Most of them, when promoted to IAS,  try to get posted near Calcutta so that they can commute to their place of work without disturbing the family setup.   In the absence of any policy of posting for these officers, it becomes easier for those who have political contact or contact at places that matter to manipulate a posting of their choice.

Being devoid of any connection, political or otherwise, I could not find a posting in a district nearby Calcutta where I could commute from home. I had kept on my fight for justice though I had ultimately failed. 

Anyway, on receipt of this letter, I wrote back to the Secretary Home (PAR) Department, pointing out that in the offer of Home (PAR) Department dated March 1, 1993, there was nothing to suggest that it was subject to clearance from the Govt. of India. On the contrary, the language of the letter, and the promptness of taking my undertaking, gave a distinct idea that it was a finally decided case and pending only for my acceptance of the terms. The State Govt did not also intimate me the position as now stated by them in time so that I could seek redress before the appropriate authority. They informed me only after it became a closed case. Even my representation to the Govt of India was not forwarded. In the letter to me intimating Govt of India's rejection of the proposal for appointing me from 1992-Select List, the Select List was incorrectly mentioned. The matter was, thus, casually dealt. Is it only the callousness of the officer signing the letter that quoted a wrong Select list? I had pointed out the error to the Secy. to Home (PAR) Department but got no reply.

The letter of the State Govt (copy on the left panel), even after the correction of names of SCS Lists (presuming this was correct in the original proposal), does not make the picture any brighter for the Govt. in its dealing with this matter. It would be found from para 2 of that letter that the proposal was declined by the Govt. of India as the related SCS list (1992-Select List) had expired and become inoperative with effect from March 29, 1993. I submitted the undertaking, as required by the State Govt., on March 3, 1993. It still had more than three weeks before the SCS-1992 list became inoperative. In this internet age, any matter can reach any part of the world in seconds. Why, then, during this period of three weeks, the proposal for my appointment could not be initiated, processed, and finalised so that it did not fall through by default? Which of the two Govts, the State or the Central or both, was responsible for this inexcusable delay and consequential irreparable damage to the career of a senior officer?

Next time, in 1993, while submitting my option for being considered for appointment to the IAS, I highlighted the whole episode of 1992, pointing out the injustice meted out to me vis-à-vis others of similar standing and asked for a posting in a nearby district if selected. I was selected but was posted again to the distant Burdwan district, where I could not commute from home in Calcutta. My earlier problem persisted, and I could not leave Calcutta, leaving behind the family. I was disgusted by the State government’s way of treating me. I did not join and kept the matter hanging for quite some time. The govt. had issued the order of my appointment in December 1993, but I did not assume the charge for the whole of 1994 and the better part of 1995.

Meanwhile (I don’t remember when) Secretary of the Home (PAR) Department, Mr K M Mandal, called me and wanted to know why I was not joining my promotion post. I told him my problems. He said he was aware of the developments, as recorded in my file and could cancel the order if I did not join. I told him it was his prerogative; I had my problems. I don’t know what happened after that; I did not receive any order of cancellation of my 1993 appointment to IAS. A year later, I received an order issued on September 11, 1995, appointing me as the Additional District Magistrate and Additional Collector, Howrah, in the cadre of IAS.

I accepted the promotion and joined the substantive post of District Land and Land Reforms Officer and Additional District Magistrate & Additional Collector on Sept 16, 1995. I could now commute to my workplace from home. L & LR Department, by its order of appointment issued on Sept 28, 1995, ratified my appointment as District Land & Land Reforms Officer. I was treated as an entrant in 1995, the year of allotment in the IAS being 1988. I had lost the seniority of four years considered, against the first promotion, in 1992. I became junior to many of my junior officers in the WBCS (Executive) joining the IAS  in the meanwhile, including those from the IAS select list of 1992. My loss of seniority in the IAS was all due to the absence of any clear policy of the State Govt. for deciding places of posting for officers on promotion to the IAS.

The necessity of having district experience does not apply to WBCS (Executive) officers who get promotions after decades of working in the district. Officers promoted from other lateral state services may need such experience as they are not conversant with the district administration. The ground of district experience put forward for posting WBCS (Ex) officers outside the State headquarter does not, therefore, hold water in the case of WBCS (Ex) officers. Such officers deserve promotion in situ. This erroneous policy of district posting of WBCS (Ex) officers on their appointment to the IAS should have been dispensed with years back. But who cares?

I had moved the Calcutta Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal against the injustice meted out to me in my posting on promotion to IAS. But I had lost. I lost due to my fault of not pursuing it with full vigour and choosing an advocate who could not present my case in its proper perspective. Due to my devotion to the work in the Govt, I did not find time to attend hearings even for a single day. I had depended too much on my advocate, a retired fellow from our service. 

Later, I thought of reviving my case after the government failed to honour its commitment to promote me from the original list based on an undertaking it took from me. But considering the pros and cons of that, I decided against it. For, even if I had succeded, in this case, I would have exceeded the age for promotion to the IAS by the time the judgment would come. 

It is perhaps the price I had to pay due to my non-compromising attitude to stick to rules and regulations in disposing of matters and for not building up political connections or connections at higher ends. That such was the case with me would also be borne out by the facts in the history of my acquisition of a flat in Salt Lake. I have no regret in either case; it is a fact of life; one has to undergo suffering if one wants to stick to one's principles. Finally, I may add that in the context of my inability to compete for direct entry to the IAS decades back due to the age bar, this loss of seniority for a few years does not count much to me. It would not have given me more than a step higher in administration and a few thousand bucks more in salary or pension. It was nothing compared to what I could have achieved if I could compete and enter directly into IAS or IFS. I am happy I could work to my satisfaction in the positions I held during my tenure.

I have brought these matters here only to highlight how one could be penalized for not towing the lines in the government.