Omission of 17A in Punjab Civil Servant Rule 1974 dt 24.07.2024
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Subject: Omission of 17A in Punjab Civil Servant Rule 1974
No.SOR-III(S&GAD)2-60/2024. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 23 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 (VIII of 1974), Governor of the Punjab is pleased to make the following amendment in the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, with immediate effect:-
AMENDMENT
In the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, Rule 17-A shall be omitted.
The omission of Rule 17-A from the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, effective from 24th July 2024, is a significant change in the policies governing civil service appointments. To fully understand this, let’s break it down simply and clearly.
What is Rule 17-A?
Before it was omitted, Rule 17-A was a provision in the Punjab Civil Servants Rules that allowed for preferential treatment in the appointment process. This rule specifically helped the following groups of people:
- Children or close relatives of civil servants who died while in service.
- Children or relatives of civil servants who became permanently disabled during service.
The purpose was to provide families of deceased or incapacitated government employees with some financial and social stability by ensuring that they still had an income source. If a government employee died or became disabled, one of their children or close relatives could be given a government job without having to go through the regular competitive selection process.
What was the reasoning behind Rule 17-A?
This rule was put in place with good intentions. It aimed to protect and support families affected by the sudden loss of their primary breadwinner (the civil servant). These families could face financial hardships, and getting a government job for one of their members provided them with a secure income.
In many cases, this rule was a form of compensation for the sacrifices made by civil servants. It acknowledged the risks and dedication involved in public service by ensuring that, even in the worst-case scenario (death or disability), the family wouldn’t be left in poverty.
Why was Rule 17-A omitted?
While Rule 17-A served a humanitarian purpose, over time, it led to some unintended consequences, such as:
- Reduced merit-based appointments: The rule allowed for appointments to be made without competition, which affected the overall fairness and meritocracy of government hiring practices. People who were otherwise unqualified for the role could get hired just because of their connection to a deceased or disabled civil servant.
- Administrative inefficiencies: Preferential appointments sometimes resulted in employees who may not be well-suited to the job being placed in important positions. This could lead to inefficiencies in government operations.
- Legal challenges: There were also cases where this rule led to legal disputes. Some argued that it gave unfair advantage to certain people over others who had better qualifications and deserved the job more on merit.
- Public criticism: Over time, public perception of the rule changed. While it was originally seen as a compassionate move, many began to view it as unfair. People felt that the government should hire the best candidates for the job, regardless of family connections.
What happens after the omission?
With the omission of Rule 17-A, the system of preferential appointments for the children or relatives of deceased or disabled civil servants has come to an end. This means that all appointments to civil service jobs will now be based purely on merit and competition, just like any other government job.
Families of deceased or disabled civil servants will no longer have the automatic right to secure a government job through this rule. However, it’s important to note that this doesn’t mean the government won’t offer any help to these families. Other support systems, such as pensions or financial assistance, may still be available.
The omission of this rule signals a shift towards a more merit-based approach in government hiring. The government aims to ensure that jobs are given to the most qualified candidates, which should, in theory, improve the quality of public service.
Conclusion
The omission of Rule 17-A from the Punjab Civil Servants Rules, 1974, marks a significant move towards a more meritocratic civil service system. While the rule was initially put in place to provide support to families of deceased or disabled civil servants, it eventually led to inefficiencies and public criticism. By removing this rule, the government intends to ensure that civil service appointments are based on merit rather than personal circumstances. Although this change may affect some families, other support systems could still be available to help those in need. Ultimately, this shift reflects the government’s commitment to improving the quality of public services through fair and competitive hiring practices.
