Railways: Choice and Competition - XII
Why shouldn’t Indian Railways have independent control over its human resources ?
The standard caveat applies.
This is, in some ways, a continuation of the last column. Talk to anyone, inside and outside, Indian Railways (IR). There will be complaints about working in silos and departmentalism, with such complaints also made about functioning of the Railway Board. As I have said before, employees in IR are in four grades – A, B, C and D. Recruitment in Grade A is through the Civil Service examination and through the Combined Engineering Services examination, also conducted by UPSC. Through the Civil Service examination, we thus have (1) Indian Railway Traffic Service; (2) Indian Railway Accounts Service; (3) Indian Railway Personnel Service; and (4) Railway Protection Force. Through the Combined Engineering Services, we have (5) Indian Railway Service of Engineers; (6) Indian Railway Stores Service; (7) Indian Railway Service of Mechanical Engineers; (8) Indian Railway Service of Electrical Engineers; and (9) Railway Service of Signal Engineers.
In addition, there are also appointments into (7) through UPSC’s Special Class Railway Apprentice Examination, the so-called Jamalpur channel. Notice that if you join IR through Jamalpur, you are probably joining at the age of 21/22. If you are joining IR through any one of the other channels, you are probably joining at the age of 24/25, if not more. There are probably around 15-20 recruitments through Jamalpur every year. Subject to that, are you surprised that so many senior people in IR happen to be from Jamalpur?
Therefore, silos are in-built, from the point of entry. Ideally, vertical mobility should be on the basis of merit. As is common in any government system, “merit” is imperfectly gauged in CRs (confidential reports) and de facto, seniority-based promotions are the norm. I have been told systems were better in 1950-s. Indeed, by any indicator, IR was in better shape in 1950-s. To compound matters, stating it a bit simplistically, in that process of vertical mobility, there is a quota system, with jobs “reserved” for specific services. To take an example, positions in Railway Board, will be “reserved” for different services. Hence, silos. This isn’t about lateral entry at higher levels. True, there is little of that. More accurately, at higher levels, people from IR go elsewhere on deputation, but IR is reluctant to accept people from outside. Nor is it about the clichéd technical versus generalist debate. Apart from accounts (RPF is different), those employed as officers in IR will have to be engineers by training. At least, the bulk will have to be engineers, if not all of them. It is more about streamlining and unifying entry, with a common entry examination.
This idea has been tossed around for decades, but nothing has changed. The model is simple. Have a single entry exam. Somewhere down the line, perhaps 13 to 15 years, from entry, give officers an option, to voluntary opt to remain on the technical side, or prefer a management function. Accordingly, impart additional training, through Jamalpur, or the new proposed Railway Universities, or even elsewhere. In other words, DRMs and GMs and those who go further up to the Railway Board, come from the management stream, with specialized training. DRMs and GMs become younger, have minimum tenures of 3 years, principles that also extend to the Railway Board. Once one has decided to do this for prospective entrants, there remains the matter of retrospectively fitting in the existing pool into the new structure, but this isn’t an insurmountable problem. The same principles can be extended to Group B, which consists of officers who are promoted from Group C.
Today, Group C is recruited through 19 Railway Recruitment Boards (RRBs). There are two broad streams there too, technical and non-technical, with separate examinations. Technical means mechanical and electrical engineering, signals and telecommunications. On the non-technical side, we have clerks, station masters, TTEs and so on. There is plenty of cleaning up that can be done for Group C too, with better entry through RRBs and a shift in focus from non-technical to technical. As I have said before, the shortage is on the technical side. But I think the larger scandal is in Group D.
If I have understood it right, all Group C recruitment is through RRBs. But there is complete discretion in appointment of Group D, discretion at the level of GMs. This is where you will find people like trackman, helper, assistant points-man, safaiwala, gangman, peon. It seems to me that these jobs can be largely eliminated. Like the “helper” on a bus, I am not sure what many of them do. Lest I forget, there is also a Railway Board Secretariat Service (RBSS) and a Railway Board Secretariat Clerical Service (RBSCS). There are around 500 of them in Rail Bhavan, catering to Railway Board and Railway Ministry, accounting for about half the people who are employed in Rail Bhavan. I have still not understood what many of them do. Since they are there, they perform a FIFO (file in – file out) role and are responsible for many decision-making delays associated with Rail Bhavan.
In discussions about reforming IR, people tend to focus on other aspects. Rarely is the organizational structure mentioned. When the organizational structure is mentioned, rarely is there mention of HR. Yet, without licking HR, the rest won’t happen. Indeed, if IR becomes independent (I am not necessarily using the word corporatization), why should scales, bonuses and incentives be linked to government structures? Why does entry have to be through UPSC? Let IR recruit from whatever source it wishes. To return to the 1000 people in Rail Bhavan, that’s one reason why there has been a creeping over-centralization down the years. While I have touched upon the need to decentralize, I will give specific examples of this centralization in the next column.