Wednesday, April 14, 2010

Treat for you..

You guys know that I am too much into constitution and its damn logic. These two things together should be able to solve a lot of our own queries about cause of corruption.

So , logically I kind of thought, that there is some major illogical lafda lurking at the way top ministers and bureaucrats work. I mean, c'mon, the constitution does not give powers to individual ministers at all. It gives power to Cabinet only; and that power to the Cabinet is also not formal at all. The formal power still has to vest with President and sarkari officers.

After a lot of fact finding, and crazy research through Transaction of business rules, appointment committee of cabinet process, , views from top civil servants I think I got close to this illogical working somewhere.

Basically, whoever amongst you answers these questions of mine and maintains logic(which is basically no round robin should be happening in the answers) gets a treat.

Q1) Which sarkari officer appoints the Secretary(Personnel, Ministry of Personnel) ?

Q2) Which sarkari officer appoints the Special Secretary & Establishment Officer (DoPT, Secretary to ACC) ?

Q3) Which sarkari officer appoints the Cabinet Secretary ?

In case, you think its the President then thats also acceptable as an answer. But ministers or a committee of ministers is not acceptable because they do not have the authority to do so due to article 77 clause 2 of the constitution.

I love this constitution. That combined with pure mathematical logic should be our cure.

And this illogical lafda , if proven such, is discovered right now at center level. I am sure such anomalies are even more prevalent at State level.

Answer this and you have delivered your first medicine for corruption.

(Btw, I have already filed an RTI for the above queries. And those guys were as lost to the logical answer as any outsider.)


Anirban Bose said...

Aare Milan,
Will I get a treat if I answer "President"? Though I don't think it is correct answer.. but acceptable hone se hi treat milega na?
RTI........ wow.... I knew it man... u have wht it takes to...
We are with you.. fight for the truth... let the truth prevail...
regarding RTI..after Well done abba... it's Well done Milan :)

Munmun said...

Hi Milan,

As per my knowledge and Google's knowledge its the President who does the appointments... hence I qualify for the TREAT.
I guess soon I will see you in politics.. the rate at which you are researching and blogging soon i will see u being appointed by some sarkari kamchari.All the best. Dont forget my treat( aaise nahi to waaise hi)

Milan said...


"President" doesn't give a damn about all of these appointments. I know that already.

You get treat for correct answer. No guesswork.

Milan said...


No you don't qualify because the appointments are done on the Prez's behalf , but not by him personally.

Waise google is good but not that good... ;)

Abhi said...

Bhai -
I have a small point to make over and above the three answers that you seek.

Something is called as analysis and something else is called as 'paralysis of analysis.' This is where you are getting into. Mind you, the waters are deep and muddy and you dont seem to be treading with care.
Further, as i have told you many times, constitution of India is not just one document but hundreds of precedents (formal and informal), judgements and practices - and that too, not just in India but elsewhere as well. (the source documents from which Indian constitution, for want of a better phrase, copy-pasted)

3) Cabinet Secretary:
He is the admin head of executive. His appointement papers are signed by the formal head of executive - aka, the president of India. Ofcourse, this happens on the advice of PM and his council of ministers.
There are precedences around seniority but this is superseded by the 'loyalty factor' towards the party/ alliance in power.

(Ofcourse, he finds the first mention in the 'Transaction of Business Rules, 1961' and the 'Allocation of Business Rules, 1961.' - You may also want to think as to why these rules are dated 1961 and not before. These rules essentially formalized practices up until then but still these are admin documents compendiums and should not be mistaken as extended elements of constitution)

Actual recommendation on appointment is given by the ACC (Appointments Cabinet Committee)

1) Secretary
Again, recommended by the ACC and can be appointed by the establishment officer.

2) I could not find a specific reference here. However, my sense is (from whatever little understanding i have of the Indian constitution), that ACC shall be recommending the appointment in this case as well.

Milan bhai - get into the soul of the constitution and not just the verbal commentaries. You shall find numerous such details and many a time conflicting opinions. The soul, however remains untouched - that's what the father of constitution - BRA and the honourable Supreme Court have observed many a times...

As regards to the treat - with or without this question, woh to hum le hee lenge...

Milan said...


Deep is good. Simplicity in this blog not be mistaken as lack of research. Logic and written words must prevail at all level even then.

3) Cabinet Secy should be, but is not appointed by the Prez.

1) Secy, can't be appointed by the establishment officer(EO) because EO is his direct junior.

2) That is correct. ACC recommends his appointments. But who appoints him finally?

The answers are not that obvious as they look.

Tumhare liye jaan hai, treat to choti cheez hai.... ;)

mayank said...

too much complicated for me hopefully u will come out of this some day or else after 1-2 yrs i wont be able to understand what u r saying at all

Nischal said...