The decision, it was explained, was taken on the request of three ministers who wanted that the qualifications be relaxed from graduation to Class XII or diploma holder. This was done, as the position is coterminous with that of the minister and the person is appointed at the discretion of the minister.
In India, there are no educational qulifications that are required to enter into the field of politics. As a consequence of this we have, across the country, persons holding important political posts with meagre educational qualifications. It is expected that the bureaucracy will fill up the vacuum in this matter. But reducing the minimum educational qualifications for the Officer on Special Duty is definitely not a progressive step for the State that has a high literacy rate. It is regressive, and has already been critiqued on social media. It is unfortunate that the move could not be one that was positive and would set a precedent for other States to follow.
Politicians are not the persons who are to be only called upon to cut the ribbon for a new business venture, or to preside over a sporting event, or to be rushed to when in need of favours. Unfortunately, the electorate has reduced the role of the legislator to this level – of being a chief guest and a person who will ‘do their work’ when required. The electors have failed to see that the politicians are legislators – the ones who deliberate in the Assembly and frame policies, enact legislation and allocate funds to departments. By the current law there is no educational qualification for politicians, but why shouldn’t the Officer on Special Duty, who is the minister’s closest advisor, not be somebody highly qualified, someone who can advise the minister on all matters after taking all angles of the issue into consideration? It is the task of the Officer on Special Duty to read and understand every document and explain it to the minister. Doesn’t this require a higher qualification?
The government should instead have considered enacting a law whereby the Officer on Special Duty holds the highest possible qualifications so that he can guide and advise the minister accordingly. The person holding the post has to have a minimum understanding of the history and culture of the place, alongwith the knowledge of the current affairs that can be then pooled with their educational background to arrive at sound decisions. If policy making is left to the politicians and administration and implementation of the policies rests with the bureaucracy, then the Officer on Special Duty would have to be also be an able administrator with skills to make the policy yield the desired results. Doesn’t this require a high level of education?
There may be other reforms needed in this. The length of service of the Officer on Special Duty in government may be coterminous with that of the minister, but that should not imply that the person filling up the position should be somebody who is an out-and-out political appointee. As long as the person holds the position, he or she is a government employee, part of the administration, paid for by the exchequer, the money for which comes from the people’s taxes. Why then shouldn’t such an officer have the highest possible qualifications? He is working for the people and paid for by the people, at least let him or her be qualified to earn that salary.
