Dilip Cherian | Questions linger on empanelment: No one on list from UP, Gujarat

The latest empanelment list for secretary and secretary-equivalent posts in the Government of India is out, and as always, it has its fair share of intrigue. This time, 37 IAS officers from 1992, 1993, and 1994 batches have made the cut, including eight review cases. But what’s catching everyone’s attention is the glaring absence of officers from Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh — two states one would expect to have a strong presence, given their political significance.

Is it just a coincidence, or is there a deeper story? For years, the government has maintained a steady pace of empanelment, clearing two IAS batches annually. That rhythm, however, has stumbled in 2024. Only the 1993 batch saw fresh empanelment in February, while the 1994 batch is still waiting for the process to even begin. And according to insiders, they might have to hold out until next year.

Two possibilities emerge. One, there’s a shortage of secretary-level posts, meaning the pipeline is getting clogged. Two, senior officers from previous batches are still waiting for their turn, leaving little room for fresh empanelments.

But if the government is slowing down the empanelment process due to limited vacancies, how do we explain the total omission of officers from Gujarat and UP? Are these states suddenly running low on top babu talent? Unlikely. If anything, these states have historically been well-represented in key government postings.

This is where the speculation starts. Could it be that the leadership wants to send a message, reshuffle loyalties, or simply keep the decks clear for a later game plan? Whatever the reason, the absence of Gujarat and UP officers in this round is bound to raise eyebrows in bureaucratic and political circles alike.

For now, the 1994 batch can only wait and watch. But one thing is certain — the process of IAS  empanelment, often seen as routine, is anything but predictable these days.

Noida’s big land mess: 10 officials under fire

The Noida Sports City project was to be a grand vision — green sports complexes, world-class infrastructure, and a short in the arm for the region’s real estate scene. Instead, it became one of Noida’s largest land scams, involving 10 IAS officers and a former Noida Authority CEO in a sordid CBI probe.

At the heart of the scandal is a rather straightforward but incriminating pattern: twisting rules to profit builders while conveniently ignoring fiscal and regulatory commitments. Mega-size land plots destined for sports infrastructure were somehow subdivided into group housing projects, occupancy and completion certificates issues despite glaring transgressions. And all the while, huge dues payable by builders simply ignored!

Sources have informed DKB that this was not an isolated mistake. The chronology of dubious decisions runs from 2007 to 2017, involving a long list of senior officials, some of whom even occupied the highest position twice. It looks like a relay race in which every runner handed over the baton of mismanagement to the next, ensuring that the irregularities remained unchecked.

Now, with the high court intervening and the CBI closing in, fear is in the air. The probe is unearthing the financial mismanagement and policy manipulations that facilitated this fiasco. According to sources, FIRs are imminent, and accountability may finally catch up with those who converted a public project into a private bonanza.

For Noida residents, this unsavoury saga is a reminder yet again that when it comes to high-end urban projects, the biggest game in town is not sports — it’s corruption.

Babus, ‘deep state’, and the politics of paranoia American author and political columnist Seth Abramson’s recent tweet regarding Trump supporters’ disdain for the US federal civil service — now derided as the ‘Deep State’ — elicits an interesting parallel here in India.  The desi ‘babu’ perhaps carries the same connotation and has long been a source of ire for the political class.

In America, the ‘Deep State’ is an easy bogeyman — a shadowy group of unelected technocrats allegedly acting in opposition to the public good. In India, babus are not a phantom elite lurking in the background; they are a well-entrenched presence of governance, steering the ship of state through stormy political waters. Though they are frequently blamed for inefficiency, corruption or obstruction, they also give institutional stability, which keeps administration from foundering into anarchy.

The paradox, of course, is that politicians in both countries bemoan bureaucratic gridlock when it suits them but depend on it when the political winds shift. So when outrage against American ‘babus’ overflows into the Indian blogosphere, the problem isn’t that bureaucracy is terrible — it generally is — but that we know our alternative selves.

Because dismantling the system in the name of promoting efficiency and complete political control is not governance, but a recipe for institutional free-fall.