|
|
 |
 |
| Sunday, 13 June 2004 |
 |
|
 |
Features |  |
| News Business Features Editorial
|
Playing politics with the PSC by D. A. Wijewardene On October 5, 2001 the 17th amendment to the Sri Lanka's constitution was added. But does it meet the aspirations of the Public Service and the Government? What are the process of evolution that the PSC has gone through in arriving at its present form? Sri Lanka has witnessed the promulgation and operation of three Constitutions. With the change of each Constitution far reaching changes were introduced into the administrative process in the areas of appointment and disciplinary control of public officers. The first was the Soulbury Constitution under which the appointment, transfer, dismissal and disciplinary control of public officers were vested in the Public Service Commission permitting Public Service Commission to delegate any of the powers vested in the Commission to any public officer. The PSC was responsible for functions of public servants in higher grades. Functions of other officers were assigned to Heads of Departments or other senior officers. After independence in 1948 the Public Service Commission system in relation to the appointment and disciplinary control of public officers took a worse turn. The very fact of its independence was later held against it. Republican Constitution of 1972 With the promulgation of the Republican Constitution of 1972 the Public Service Commission system was abolished and the Cabinet of Ministers was vested with all power over public officers, who were then designated state officers. The Cabinet of Ministers was responsible for the appointments, transfers, dismissals and disciplinary control of state officers. However, the Cabinet could not be expected to exercise all these powers by itself. The Constitution provided for delegation by the Cabinet. Accordingly, the Cabinet retained powers in respect of the higher grades of officers and the other powers were delegated to Ministers. Under this Constitution there were also two special institutions, State Services Advisory Board and the State Services Disciplinary Board. These two boards performed advisory duties. The Constitution held that the Cabinet of Minister may make and order appointments and also be responsible for discipline of public officers after obtaining a recommendation of one of these Boards. In 1978 the Public Service Commission was reconstituted. The PSC was created only as an institution subordinate to the Cabinet. It lost the independence that it enjoyed under the Soulbury-Constitution. The Cabinet was vested with all powers of appointment and disciplinary control of public officers. The Cabinet again reserved to itself powers in respect of the higher grade officers; and all the other powers were delegated to the PSC. At the same time the Cabinet issued a directive to the PSC that it should delegate these powers to Secretaries of Ministries and to Heads of Departments. The PSC accordingly was left with no original powers of its own. It derived only appellate powers, granted directly by the Constitution. The PSC proceeded to delegate to Secretaries powers in respect of staff grade officers and to Heads of Departments, (and later to officers below this rank) the powers in relation to officers of non staff-grade, as directed by the Cabinet. As this system was in operation it was argued that a Secretary to a Ministry being a nominee of the Minister, the former may be influenced politically by the latter in his (Secretary's) decisions. Accordingly, on a directive of the Cabinet the PSC then withdrew the powers delegated to Secretaries as from February 17, 1992. Merit Under the Soulbury Constitution the PSC which was an independent institution, considered merit and seniority as the sole criteria that would govern the appointments of government servants. Political neutrality in the conduct of a government servant was considered as a virtue. With the Republican Constitution politics crept into government service. With the abolition of the PSC in 1972 there has been a persistent cry for an independent institution to manage the affairs of public officers. What is this desired independence? It is evidently independence from political interference. In various transformations as shown above we have now another form of PSC created by the 17th Amendment to the Constitution as from October 2001. Let us now see whether we have achieved this desired result. Article 55 (1) of this Amendment states: "The appointment, promotion, transfer, disciplinary control and dismissal of public officers shall be vested in the Commission". However, the powers in respect of Heads of Departments have been vested in the Cabinet of Ministers (by Article 55 (3), who shall exercise such power after ascertaining the views of the Commission. Article 56(1) provides for delegation by the PSC to a Committee and under Article 57 (1) delegation to a public officer is provided for. At present the PSC is vested with functions of staff grade officers; Public officers under delegation from the P.S.C. are vested with functions of non-staff grade officers, in discipline. Appointments and functions of Heads of Departments are vested with the Cabinet. Thus the devolution of the PSC, over the years has been as follows from 1946: 1946 - PSC under the Soulbury Constitution as devoid of involvement of any Ministers of State. 1972 - PSC Abolished. All powers vested in Ministers individually and the Cabinet. 1978 - PSC re-established but as a delegate the Cabinet, with limited powers. 2001 - (i) PSC established, with the Cabinet having powers over the Heads of Departments only . (ii) Powers over Police Officers have also been taken away from the PSC and vested in an independent National Police Commission, by the 17th Amendment. With my experience as the only Secretary, State Services Disciplinary Board in 1972 and later as a Secretary, PSC, I favour the system under the Soulbury Constitution of 1946 as it ensures more independence for the PSC. |
|
News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security Produced by Lake House |
