|
Whimsical Marking by A Corrupt Boss either in Interview or
in Annual Appraisal can completely spoil the career of a devoted hard
working banker
by
Danendra Jain
dkjain49709@gmail.com
Officers, especially top bankers who advocate merit and talk of fast track
promotion to give chance to juniors are now building pressure on Ministry of
Finance to reduce eligibility marks from 75% to 60%. It is bitter truth that
merit of an officer cannot be judged by marks given to him by his assessor. Same
officer gets 60 marks in Annual appraisal report from one boss and 95 from
another boss; same officer gets 70 marks in one region and 98 marks IN OTHER
REGION. Awarding of marks mostly depends on perception and conception of the
assessing officer.
If the assessing officer is prejudiced, or believer in WWW (wine, wealth and
woman), he or she can easily and comfortably spoil the future of any officer by
giving very poor marks and there is no way to protest such unethical and evil
acts. In some states there is a tradition of awarding above 90 marks to all
officers in annual appraisal report (AAR) whereas in some other state there is a
practice of awarding in the range of 70 to 80. People will believe me or not God
knows, but it is also a undeniable truth that at the time of promotion process
Regional Head used to submit purely a false, concocted, fabricated, and
fraudulent chart of marks to Central authorities as also to members of interview
panels appointed for promotion process for officers who used to be candidate for
promotion and this chart of marks were entirely different from the actual AAR.
Such false game may be proved only by a through CBI investigation into the
record of past two or three decades.
There is therefore no merit in denying opportunity to any officer based on
marks. I can rather mention here that no officer should have got marks below 70
or 75, and if someone has been given marks from 60 to 70 , it means assessor
does not have mind to properly assess the juniors or the junior is not at all
fit for bank job and he must have been recruited through illegal means, say by
payment of bribe to recruiters. In such cases performance assessing authority,
reviewing authority and the officer who is being assessed and given marks below
70 must be removed from bank or given VRS.Normally a student obtaining 60 marks
in education life used to be treated as intelligent. But in banks there is a
practice of awarding 90 and above to almost all officers and hence the role of
interview in final selection becomes more dominant and effective.
On the contrary I am of the opinion that there should not be any interview
system. After all, in interview, members of the panel pick officers as per his
whims and fancies, there is no value of experience, no value of marks in
appraisal and nothing is important as is important the recommendation of
regional head or some key officers. In such position it is foolish to spend
crores of rupees on conducting interview and paying Travelling bill to candidate
appearing in promotion processes.
Let the top officers decide at their own level and select officers for promotion
on the basis of seniority and if they feel that any officer is incompetent or is
not interested to accept promotion on the ground of sickness, they should make a
record of it. If officer continue to be non performer for say five years he may
be forced to or offered retirement. Why after all bank will bear the burden of
non performers.
It is arbitrary decision in promotion processes that officers have lost in the
promotion processes and therefore many good officers have decided not to attend
/ participate in such processes. It is only bank which is suffering loss due to
non participation of meritorious and talented guys. Most of good officers
preferred voluntary retirement only because of Worst HRD policies and corrupt
execution of these policies. There is no system of immediate justice to those
who are willfully and with malicious intention rejected by interview panel. No
appeal and no relief by courts even in two decades.
It is worthwhile to mention here that if a person joined as officer in seventies
or eighties, he got first opportunity for promotion after 10 to 12 years and
further for second promotion after 8 to 10 years . It means a good officer could
become scale III in a span of 20 to 25 years. Now management directly appoints
officer in scale III and makes him in scale IV in 3 to 5 years neglecting the
old batch who devoted served the bank for two to three decades. Similar
situation occurs when officers are directly recruited in scale II or III or IV
and V and so on.
In seventies and eighties officers joining in banks used to be treated as equal
or super to IAS and IPS officers and now after three decades officers joining in
banks is treated as worse than a clerk or a peon in central government. Role of
WWW has become more dominant than the knowledge and skill to work. I would
rather say that future of banks under public sector has been spoilt by dirty
officers whose intention is malicious and who served the bank only for his
personal interest. Another startling truth is that a person joining in banks as
officer do not continue in the job more than 5 years. Attrition rate in banks is
more than any other sector.
Sickness in banks is growing, volume of NPA is increasing and attrition rate in
banks is increasing year after due toa. A. Misuse of power in lending,
contractual work, recruitment, promotion, transfer etc.b. B. Abuse of best HRD
policies to serve self interestc. C. Ineffective judiciary due to which
injustice is allowed to perpetuated. D. Senior intelligent and hard workers are
constrained to work under junior, less talented and non-serious workers only
because flattery and bribery played key role at all level in all activities.
Bank management should stop making lame excuses that seniors are not available
or senior are not interested for promotion or junior are more talented. It is
the vested interest of top few officials that they pick officers in higher scale
from market and deprive the promotion chances of decades old officers available
in their bank. It is ridiculous to listen that adequate number of good officers
are not available in any bank or in any industry for promotion. It is totally
mismanagement that such a situation has arisen even if it is assumed that such
situation exists. Bitter truth is that all policies are framed in good way but
executed in bad way. It is only the whims of members of interview panel which
matters much because by giving 25 out of 25 these members can pull an
inefficient person from bottom to top. If an officer has to be rejected ,
interview panel will give only 2 or 3 marks in interview which will nullify the
effect of higher marks he or she got in annual appraisals.
It is absolutely unconstitutional to recruit directly from market an officer in
higher scale when adequate numbers of experienced officers are present in the
bank and who are waiting for promotion for decades as per old policies. Every
year they change the policy to suit their mind and to deny someone and award
some other. Banks can prosper in the hands of well experienced officers and not
young MBA or highly qualified officers who do not have adequate exposure in
bank. Volume of NPA is increasing in banks because young team of officers
sitting at top and higher posts whereas senior and talented team of officers are
subordinate to them . Offices who are boss know less than those who are working
under them because of flattery culture n promotion process. Where no alternative
ways is visible to ensure absolute justice it is better desirable to have
totally seniority based promotion which will at least minimize misuse or abuse
of HRD policies by whimsical top officials.
|
