In June 2018, the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) issued an invitation to apply for a position as a Joint Secretary at the Centre, paving the way for lateral entry. According to the notification, the DoPT is looking for 10 “outstanding individuals” who are willing to contribute to nation-building to join the government at the level of Joint Secretary at the Centre. The intake will be made in 10 departments initially (Revenue, Financial Services, Agriculture, etc.) but will enlarge to other categories in the second phase. The hiring will be on a three-to-five-year contract basis.

Eligibility Criteria:

• Individuals with a minimum of 15 years of experience employed at equivalent levels in private sector businesses, except those working in central public sector undertakings, autonomous agencies, academic bodies, and universities.
• It specifies a minimum age of 40 and minimum qualification of graduation from a recognised university or institute.

Arguments in Favour of Lateral Entry:

• In the past, the Sixth pay commission and Second Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC), Surinder Nath Committee (2003), and the Hota Committee (2004) have also supported the idea.
• Another concern regarding lateral entrants is the kind of work culture which can be difficult in working in government organisations.

• Introducing Competition: The assurance of a secure career offers little incentive to bureaucrats to outperform others. But when civil servants are made to compete with outside talent, the lethargic attitude will diminish, and efficiency will increase.

• Need of Specialists: A judicious combination of domain knowledge and relevant expertise is a critical requirement in governance. But the training and posting turns IAS officers into generalists rather than specialists. Lateral entrants from outside will bring the required specialists.

Present System of Lateral Entry is not Institutionalised: 

• In India lateral entry is not new and its benefits were earlier experienced in India as well. For example, the Chief Economic Adviser is appointed through lateral entry. Some notable people who were appointed in this manner include Montek Singh Ahluwalia, Nandan Nilekani etc. But this practice of appointing lateral entrants is made on an ad-hoc basis and not institutionalised.

• International Scenario: Western countries like the UK, USA, Australia, Holland, and Belgium have already thrown open specific government positions to qualified personnel from all walks. It has been found to be a better way to attract opposite talents for the job.

• There is a shortage of over 1,400 IAS and 900 IPS officers. It will address this problem of shortage of officers at a higher level.

Arguments Against Lateral Entry:

• Lateral entry may lead to demotivation to the government officers which may affect their performance.
• Lateral entrants may not perform or work well due to differences in work culture and systemic inertia. Outside entrants may not fully understand the system which can be exploited against them.
• The lateral entrant will not have experience comparable to that of an IAS officer. They may lack knowledge of practical aspects and they might have more of an urban mind-set. This will affect the formulation of policies at a higher level.
• There is fear that it will lead to the appointment of pro-establishment candidates which will allow the government to do something inadvisable.
• There is a grave concern that business houses may push in their own men to get favourable policies.
• The new civil service has the advantage that policymakers have long-term interests in government. They also have a history of justice and participation in government.
• The lateral entry scheme may not take into account the reservation policy, which will be a breach of the Constitution.
• The biggest criticism is that the high-class human resources are employed on 3-5 years of contract periods, and they can serve someone else’s interests as they do not have long-term interest in government.

Issues Involved:

• Conflict of Interest: The transfer of private person from corporate world may create conflict of interest, which makes the mandatory code of ethics to the person who comes from the corporate world. Through this code of ethics interest does not jeopardise the public good and welfare.

• Profit Motive vs. Public Service: As the highlighted feature of the Private sector is profit earning but on the other hand government’s main aim is to promotion of the welfare of the people. Before the person coming to the government sector from the private sector. Hence there is need to make changes as per the need of public welfare.

• Differences in Organisational Values: The different organisational values in private sectors and most of the different in government sector. Hence it is very important to understand that the person who comes from the private sector needs to go through the adoption training to make the process easier to adopt new ways of work methods.

• Lack of Precise Requirements: The advertisement’s criteria were broad, and therefore failed to provide a narrow window into which people of eminence or domain experts in the fields advertised could be attracted.

Other Reforms to be Carried Out with Lateral Entry:

• Central Civil Services Authority Setup: However, there is a chance that lateral entry may turn out to be an excuse for a backdoor entry of the ‘spoils-system’ to recruit politically-aligned persons. In this regard the Administrative Reforms Committee suggested the need for formation of the “Central Civil Services Authority”, which is supposed to be an autonomous body and oversee independent authority for supervising the proposed recruitment process.

⇒ There is also a need to introduce competitive examination of lateral entry along with the fair check and balances to ensure the people who have true integrity and honest person should serve the key position in government.

• Complement Lateral Entry with Lateral Exit: Civil servants should be encouraged to work in various sectors for a short period of time in order to broaden their skills and improve their morale and productivity. As a result, lateral exit is just as important as lateral entry.

While the concept of lateral entry into the administrative system has been discussed for many years, this is the first step toward putting it into practice, sparking a lively debate about the benefits and drawbacks of the change. For sure, a change of this nature will face stiff resistance from within the IAS lobby. However, the government should go ahead with this reform as the national interest is always greater than the interest of a few.