news details |
|
|
| Government Failed to Bring a Rational, Transparent Transfer Policy for Education Department | | | Shakeel Ahmad Rather
Jammu and Kashmir
Government came up
with a policy for employees of education department which can be viewed by clicking link http://www.jkeducation. gov.in/622.pdf after six months when Draft transfer policy which can be viewed by clicking link http://www.jkeducation.gov.in/draft%20transfer% 20policy.pdf came in June 2015. In draft transfer policy stakeholders were asked to give their suggestions so that it would help the government to finalize the policy. For this policy I submitted my concerns on the provided email address. I expected that the policy would address my concerns and bring a policy which will have a landmark position in the whole history of J&K administration but unfortunately there is not too much new in the new policy. My suggestions can be viewed by clicking my Facebook page link https://www.facebook.com/shakeel.rather.90/posts/860336857393707. However the main concerns which I put forth then and which have not been addressed by the concerned authorities are reproduced below along with relevant criticism of the framed policy.
A streamlined transfer policy must have few important characteristics which have been deficient in all the previous policies so for. I may point to few characteristics here.
i. It must be transparent and every stakeholder should be able to know beforehand approximately where shall be his/her next posting.
ii. It should be based on choice to maximum extent possible so that an employee does not feel that he/she is performing his/her duties under compulsion.
iii. It should be free from intervention from any authorities whatsoever as for as it is practicable so that ways for corrupt practices are almost negligible.
iv. It should be based on quantitative facts such as seniority, age, qualification etc.
Given these facts the framed policy stands nowhere. However, followings points are still worth to be mentioned regarding the framed policy.
The framed policy says that 'since the concern of a teaching staff member is essentially of non-displacement from the place of residence ... the tenure shall be viewed with reference to the place where the employee is required to maintain his(/her) residence'. Further 'a teaching staff member may be transferred from one school to another at the end of an academic year on cogent reasons including the performance of an official, school results, enrollment, rationalization, administrative measures like subject specific requirements, pooling of posts rather than having specific sanctioned post on a particular school etc.' It is just speculative use of words and nothing else. Primary concern of a teacher is not non-displacement of residence rather it is 'suitable choice' which has not been alluded to even. And saying that the transfers shall be made on cogent reasons is easier said than done. The few reasons mentioned above such as performance, result, rationalization etc. are not quantitative terms to be assessed in the normal way. It is not easy to judge the performance of a teacher by just looking at the result of a class. There is interplay of various factors to make a class-result to be good or bad for a particular year. For example, a teacher employed to teach 9th class students may have to teach students who have been promoted to 9th class without consideration to their actual learning or academic performance. May be some mass promotion may have pushed them higher. Then the scheme of general examination is so inefficient that many students get promoted to higher classes who are deficient in ordinary writing skill, let alone the skill to understand the text of a particular subject. Some students in rural areas don't even know the spellings of the subjects they are studying. When a court asks a degree holder to write an essay on 'cow' and he fails, can't it be said that there are similar cases around in education department and these black sheep have contributed to the deterioration of the education in general and it impacts the other stakeholders in other classes?
In the next clause it is mentioned that maximum tenure would be three years which implies that the teacher would be transferred after he/she has served at a location for three years. So for so good but in practice it is impracticable. Zone 1 and Zone II division is not well defined. It is said that Zone 1 is 'where employee does not require to change his residence' and Zone II is 'where employee is required to change his residence'. This is in effect no zone demarcation at all. For one employee zone 1 would be different than another employee since requirement of change of residence is different for different employee. The mixing up of zones makes the policy worst of all the previous policies.
A teacher would be rotated between Zone I and Zone II subject to availability of posts. The mention of 'subject to availability of posts' is way out to play foul for the authorities. If a teacher has served in Zone II for maximum period then he/she must be adjusted in Zone I and post must be made available. If it is not done that way the whole policy shatters and loopholes are created. There is room for corruption and same old vicious circle starts as has been the case in the past.
According to clause 6, on promotion an official is likely to be posted to difficult areas whether immediately or latter subject to the exclusion from Administrative Department. The wording in this clause is such that it can easily be manipulated by the authorities for their own use and may kill the essential requirement of justice. The use of Zone has been avoided in the above clause. However it may be inferred that 'difficult areas' fall in Zone II and Zone III. On promotion an official who is essentially a teacher in this context needs to be adjusted in Zone II or Zone III not likely but compulsorily so that remote areas will have ample staff. And further, on promotions an employee expects adjustments outside. However there should have been mention of adjustment considering the age and physical fitness of the promotee based on a clear and transparent availability of data to all who are concerned. A young man would gladly serve in Zone III compared to a middle aged man who has lot of liabilities. Then it must be made clear on what grounds should Administrative Department be allowed to exclude a particular teacher from generality. If it is not mentioned, the past is repeated here again and we are served old wine in new bottle and nothing more than that.
Clause 7 says that an 'official recruited from an area that gives reservation benefit shall be ordinarily required to serve the prescribed period in such area'. For example an official recruited from RBA (resident of backward area) must serve in that area as per the framed policy. This is again wishful thinking as the experience of past shows. The defined backward areas are so haphazard that many times a backward area is nearer to town than another area which does not fall under RBA category. Again if an RBA teacher is adjusted in own RBA area the purpose of clause is served but if he is forced to serve in another RBA area the natural justice is marred.
Clause 10 says that 'married lady officials with young children, widows and divorcee female officials would be posted such that' they 'can return home after duty'. For a young lady with young children it is important to reach home and every one understands the implications but why should this same be required for widows and divorcee female officials is not understood.
Clauses 12, 13 and 14 are about adjustment of official attaining age of superannuation, official on some medical grounds and official on security concerns. There are similar other factors which must be considered such as person having ailing aged parents, persons having children studying in schools who need special parental attention, a person under depression due to some recent shock etc. The list would be endless and essentially better to be dispensed with. Then, saying 'subject to administrative efficacy' is essentially a matter of debate. It may, like other points above, be used by authorities for their own ends without compunctions.
In respect of district cadre posts, it is mentioned that 'postings shall be alternated between urban areas and rural areas' which is not practically possible given the difference between number of posts available in urban areas and rural areas. It is further said in clause 16 (c) that no official shall be posted to any school where he/she has served over the past five years or immediately preceding two postings'. This is a move, I suppose, to curb the repetitive postings in same school and it is welcome move but it would better serve its purpose if it is used for urban postings only. Then, the teachers who have always been posted in urban area in the past due to their influences or use of money would be forced to move out of towns. It will also make availability of teachers in rural areas.
Clause 20 says that 'in respect of model schools and also those schools that have maintained high standards of education, the teaching staff shall be posted such that the standards are not compromised, even if the same is in exception to general policy'. Model schools may be those that are defined by government but what is the criteria for high standards of education for other schools is not clear. Is it result at the end of year? If so, the criteria is not good as there is interplay of many factors for good or bad result. Further saying that 'even if the same is in exception to general policy' creates ways for the authorities to circumvent the laid rules.
Finally, the very important point that should have been mentioned for proper implementation of the policy that if the framed policy is not followed by the authorities themselves what shall be penalty for such breach? Given the past facts that policies have come up and authorities have cast them aside it becomes imperative that some implementation check must be there for the authorities but there is no mention of any such check whatever in the framed policy. It is nothing more than befooling the teaching community and teachers have kept their silence as ever as if there is nothing at stake for them or for society at large. Some teachers' associations have welcomed the policy in sheer flattery of the authorities. May Allah help us! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
