CBEC and CBDT – Rules notified for selection of Chairmen and members
Can you believe it, there are no rules for the appointment of the Chairman and Members of the CBEC and CBDT? In Sunil Kumar Chaudhury v Union of India, the Central Administrative Tribunal asked the governmental counsel as what were the rules for appointment of the Chairman and Members of CBEC. He really had no answer and filed an affidavit regarding the procedure which was as follows:
++ The posts of Member in C.B.E.C. are ex-cadre posts. Appointment to these posts is made with the approval of the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet. Recommendation in this regard is made by the Cabinet Secretary after considering all the eligible officers.
++ In this process, he is assisted by a Special Committee of Secretaries, which takes into account the service records of all the eligible officers including their ACRs, vigilance positions and other relevant material, before making a recommendation,
++ It may be reiterated that the recommendations of the Special Committee of Secretaries are ‘Secret’ in nature and the information obtained by the petitioner through a website cannot be relied upon. (The web site referred to was taxindiaonline)
++ The appointment to the post of Member, C.B.E.C. is approved by ACC after considering the recommendations of the Special Committee of Secretaries. The committee takes into account various factors relevant at the time of making their recommendations.
The CAT observed, “We do not find anything in said paras which could be said to be guidelines or procedure for filling up the posts in question” and added, “due to absence of rule or guidelines, this Tribunal is faced with the difficulty for testing the legality and validity of panel on the basis that the State being governed by rule of law, every administrative action has to be tested so that principles giving effect to rule of law are not violated while exercising administrative power. It would have been better if some rule or guidelines were given in respect of zone of consideration, so far present case, is concerned”
Five years after this CAT judgement, the President has made the Rules for the appointment of the members and Chairmen of CBDT and CBEC. Salient features of the new rules are:-
1. Classification: The Chairman and members are classified under the General Central Service, Group ‘A’, Gazetted, Non-Ministerial. They were earlier ex cadre. Has the situation changed?
2. Selection: Earlier the selection was by seniority cum fitness and an overlooked senior could always go to the CAT. Now it is only selection. Seniority is not at all a consideration.
3. Method of recruitment: Now the method of appointment is by Deputation/Absorption.
4. Who are eligible? Strangely eligibility is not restricted to IRS officers. No there is no attempt to bring in IAS officers. Experience of at least 15 years in the filed of taxes is mandatory.
5. Qualifications: 1. Having high professional merit and excellence; and 2. Having impeccable reputation of integrity.
While there is a restriction of at least one year of service left for member, there is no such restriction for the Chairman.
It is really unfortunate that these Boards were in existence so long with no rules for recruitment of their members and chairmen. But has the rules made any difference? Why it is not specifically mentioned that the Chairmen will be selected from among the members and the members from among the Chief Commissioners? Is it with a future plan to bring in officers from other departments?
Then how do you rate high professional merit and excellence? And impeccable reputation of integrity? Who will decide these? They will be decided on the confidential reports. No corrupt officer will report that his subordinate is corrupt. So almost every one gets through the CRs. Where are you going to get officers of impeccable integrity with high professional merit and excellence?
Perhaps the whole system needs a major overhaul. At every stage of promotion there should be a tough test and only those who qualify should go to the next stage. By this elimination process we can filter a lot of useless stuff floating to the top. And may be there should be only one point of entry, say all the officers have to join the department as inspectors and after elimination at every stage, the best should reach the top.
Another suggestion is to make the Board thoroughly professional and decide once for all, what the Board is supposed to do. If the Board’s job is to issue notifications and circulars, experience has shown that they have failed. In any case they are prepared by junior officers like under secretaries. Most of the officers don’t read the law or keep track of the procedures once they get promoted as Joint Commissioners and so by the time an officer reaches the level of Board member he is as away from the field and the subject as the IAS Revenue Secretary. In a seminar organised by TIOL a few years back the Revenue Secretary was able to answer questions from the audience with far more authority than the Chairman, who seemed to be totally unaware of the budget provisions. Is the Board for policy? That somehow is decided by the Ministry and the Board does not seem to have much of a role there. Is the Board for transfers? Less said the better.
Is the Board for management? Then why not appoint professional managers? Why not recruit a few IIM graduates? Or why can’t the Board be like the Board of Directors of a company? Appoint a few experts from the field of economics, management etc, one or two members from the staff and a few representatives from the trade.
Anyway seniority is no more a major criterion for selection and this is likely to cause several problems.
(See Recruitment Rules for CBEC + CBDT for Chairman & Members )