IAS induction row not about lapse, but favouritism: JCC

Joint Coordination Committee (JCC) on IAS Induction, comprising of CANSSEA, FONSESA, NIDA, NSSA and NF&ASA, has refuted government spokesperson and minister K.G. Kenye’s statement attributing the IAS induction issue to a “bureaucratic procedural lapse”.
In a press note, JCC said the entire impasse of the IAS induction has been blamed on bureaucratic misadventure and that the bureaucracy, despite its flaws, has often served as a convenient scapegoat. In this case, however, the prestige and respect of the IAS stood threatened by procedural manipulation to induct an irregular appointee to be equated with the rest, JCC stated.
Quoting the spokesperson, JCC pointed out that “the error has occurred because the circular was neither placed before the chief minister who oversees the P&AR department, nor approved by the cabinet prior to issue”.
It maintained that the same order with identical content had been issued by the same authority on July 6, 2020, approved by the chief minister, from which a candidate was selected and inducted into the IAS under the same clause.
JCC stated that if the bureaucracy fell short of its procedural duties, the concerned authorities had the moral and legal duty to rectify the lapse rather than remove the circular.
“A disease when detected in a patient must be treated, not the patient exterminated,” it said. It maintained that Clause 4 did not violate the principle of meritocracy and could not be made a casualty of procedural lapse since it strengthened efficiency in governance. The lapse of pending procedure, it said, could be cured by ratifying it if required.
The committee condemned what it termed as the unfortunate mis-statement of the government spokesperson with regard to the names of officers inducted into IAS from the non-SCS quota in the past. It said the list was biased, incomplete and factually incorrect and defamed NPSC-qualified IAS officers categorised as non-NPSC, adding that such a statement betrayed trust and confidence.
JCC stated that there was a time in the past when there was no competitive exam for recruitment and barely any candidate for government service, but this outdated practice did not mean the State should remain in primitive circumstances devoid of institutions like NPSC, NSSB or departmental examinations. Precedence, it said, should be valued only when rooted in fairness, justice and public interest.
With changing times, the mode of recruitment into public service has evolved and rightfully so. In the induction of IAS from non-SCS officers, JCC said the circumstances before 2020 may have dictated criteria at that time, but the equation changed when the July 6, 2020, Vacancy Circular was issued, introducing Clause 4 that made NPSC recruitment a necessary eligibility. A candidate was selected on the merits of this circular and conferred IAS.
JCC pointed out that there were no complaints against the circular advocating meritocracy– neither from the public, applicants, Cabinet nor government. The same circular with the same eligibility criteria was again advertised on March 10, 2025, only to be retracted to accommodate an applicant whose entry into service was irregular, thus violating Article 16 of the Constitution.
It stated that JCC had written several representations to the government beginning from March 2025, immediately after the circular was withdrawn, but despite several representations there was no invitation for dialogue, compelling the Committee to protest.
Referring to the government’s justification– if that order (March 10, 2025 Vacancy Circular) did not bar those officers who did not enter through NPSC that it would have been fine. It detected that Clause 4 has barred those officers whose entry was not from NPSC from participating, then that order was recalled cancelled”- JCC said this statement exposed favoritism, nepotism and premeditated preference of a particular candidate despite the availability of other meritorious applicants.
It said the withdrawal would have been fine if all candidates had entered service through NPSC, thereby supporting procedural corrections. But the presence of a non-NPSC candidate with a backdoor credential made the withdrawal a malafide act with vested interest on the pretext of procedural correction.
While the Cabinet had discretionary powers over policy matters, JCC stated that it also had a responsibility to ensure fairness and merit in the best interest of the State and its people. It expressed hope that the government, through the Sub-Committee, would demonstrate wisdom and act in the larger public interest.
According to the Committee, the issue now remains whether the government’s priorities lie in the welfare of the State and the larger interest of the people through meritocracy or in favoritism and nepotism.
JCC stated that it firmly believes that merit and fairness must prevail over convention and administrative practice or convention should not supersede constitutional principles or statutory provisions of meritocracy.
It also said that administrative accountability must accompany any claim of procedural lapse and that peaceful dialogue must be grounded in rule of law and not in defending outdated practices.
In the pursuit of fairness and merit, the JCC demanded– restoration of Clause-4 of Vacancy Circular of March 10, 2025 and withdrawal of non-NPSC appointees from the panel list forwarded to the UPSC.