Holding NAB to account

The unsavoury practice of giving undeserving people jobs to gain influence or favour friends is all pervasive in this country. In a latest example, a three-member bench of the Supreme Court, taking a suo motu notice on the basis of an anonymous letter, has held to account the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) for illegal appointments and out-of-turn promotions. The sheer volume of the irregularities involved is astounding: 137. In its short order, the court gave various directions to "accommodate everybody within the legal framework" without stigmatizing individuals. As a first step, the court has directed the NAB Chairman to immediately denotify the services of three retired army officers appointed in violation of rules. A special committee has been formed to determine the fate of other officers whose appointments and promotions were acknowledged as being 'inconsistent' with the rules.
This is the second apex court verdict within the space of less than two weeks that aims to rationalize public officials' promotions and appointments. It may be recalled that the recent use of discretion by the Prime Minister's office to decide senior civil servants' promotions had spurred a raging public controversy. And in one instance, an affectee, a Grade 21 officer sixth on the seniority list, had approached the apex court complaining that despite her unblemished service record she was not given her due while individuals on 10th and 16th seniority level were promoted. In that case, too, the complaint was found to be valid and the relevant authority, the High Powered Selection Board, ordered to review its decisions and decide promotion according to the set merit criteria and report back to the court.
The key consideration for those with power or influence while making appointments is personal connections rather than merit. NAB has shown it is no exception although its job is to curb corrupt practices in a vital area. Unfortunately, nepotism rules the roost in almost all government departments as well as semi-autonomous bodies. The procedural requirements, such as advertising job vacancies, are ignored and required qualification standards bypassed or bent to accommodate liked persons. More often than not, even when advertisements are placed they are deliberately crafted to suit the already decided candidates. The same happens in deciding choice business contracts. The result of course is inefficiency and rampant corruption. As important as it is to address the problem, it is too big a challenge to make those in power abide by the rules. There is a limit to what the courts can do in this regard. Yet judicial activism in this country has an important role to play in setting things right.