On the controversy over lateral entry into the civil services

Notes for Students

Topic: Lateral Entry in Civil Services, News Source: The Hindu (June 2025)

Context of the Article: UPSC withdrew its advertisement for lateral recruitment of 45 senior government posts following objections from coalition partners and intervention by the Prime Minister’s Office, raising concerns about merit, reservation, and administrative autonomy.

UPSC Paper Topic Belongs To:

Governance | Civil Services Reform | Public Administration | Indian Polity

Dimensions of the Article:

• Autonomy and politicisation of bureaucracy
• Merit system vs spoils system in civil services
• Role and need for lateral entry appointments
• Challenges of reservation and transparency in recruitment

Lateral Entry in Civil Services: A Perspective-Based Overview

1. What is Lateral Entry?

Lateral entry refers to the recruitment of individuals from outside the traditional civil services structure—such as professionals from the private sector, public sector undertakings, academia, or international organizations—into senior government positions like Joint Secretary, Director, or Deputy Secretary.

• First formally initiated through a UPSC-led process in 2018.
• Recommended by Second Administrative Reforms Commission (2005) and NITI Aayog (2017).
• Aimed at bringing domain expertise in sectors like technology, environment, finance, cyber security, semiconductors, etc.

• Why the Recent Controversy?
  • UPSC issued an advertisement in May 2024 for 45 lateral posts.
  • Objections were raised by Opposition parties and coalition partners over the absence of reservations for SC/ST/OBC/EWS in lateral recruitment.
  • The Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) intervened, prompting UPSC to withdraw the advertisement for reconsideration.

• Reservation and Social Inclusion in Lateral Entry
  • Traditional UPSC civil services examinations incorporate constitutional reservation provisions.
  • Lateral entry, as conducted till now, lacks a quota system, leading to concerns over social justice and representation.
  • Demand: If lateral entry becomes institutionalized, it must integrate reservation norms in line with Articles 15(4), 16(4) and 16(4A) of the Constitution.
  • Michael Sandel’s principle in The Tyranny of Merit suggests that meritocracy must align with equity, not override it.

What is the Merit System?

A system where appointments to government jobs are made based on qualifications, competitive examinations, and performance, rather than personal or political connections.

Key Features:

• Recruitment is done by independent commissions (e.g., UPSC in India).
• Based on objective criteria: marks, interviews, and eligibility.
• Emphasizes neutrality, professionalism, and continuity.
• Promotes career bureaucracy — lifelong civil servants who are insulated from politics.

Example in India:

• UPSC Civil Services Examination for IAS, IPS, IFS, etc.
• Recruitment based on written exams + interviews + reservation policy.

Historical Background:

• Introduced in India by the British in 1858 through the Indian Civil Service (ICS).
• Adopted post-Independence via UPSC under Article 315 of the Constitution.

What is the Spoils System?  

A system where government jobs are given to people who are politically loyal or have supported the ruling party, often disregarding merit.

Key Features:

• Appointments based on party loyalty, not qualifications.
• Encourages politicization of bureaucracy.
• Can lead to corruption, nepotism, and administrative inefficiency.
• Undermines independence and neutrality of the civil services.

Example (U.S. Historical Context):

• Practiced in the United States during the 19th century, especially under President Andrew Jackson.
• Phrase: “To the victor belong the spoils.”
• Reformed later by the Pendleton Civil Service Act (1883) which introduced merit-based hiring.

Merit System vs. Spoils System

• India’s administrative structure is fundamentally based on the merit system, evolved with constitutional safeguards to ensure diversity and equity.
  • Excessive lateral entry without safeguards may resemble the spoils system, where appointments are driven by political preference over competence or representation.

• Pros of Lateral Entry
  • Brings domain-specific expertise in areas where generalist IAS officers may lack technical depth.
  • Infuses fresh thinking and professional efficiency.
  • May re-energize bureaucracy through external benchmarks and innovation.
  • Encourages outcome-based performance in specialized departments.

• Cons and Concerns
  • Lack of field experience, which is the hallmark of career civil servants.
  • Coordination difficulties between lateral entrants and permanent bureaucracy.
  • Absence of reservation norms may exclude disadvantaged groups.
  • Conflicts of interest, particularly if recruits are from corporate backgrounds.
  • Potential drift towards politicization if transparent, merit-based, and socially inclusive processes are not ensured.

• Way Forward
  • Any institutionalization of lateral entry must:
    • Be handled by independent bodies like UPSC. o             Include reservation norms in line with constitutional principles. o        Define tenure security, clear roles, and accountability mechanisms. o             Be limited to clearly defined technical posts, not general administration.
    • Avoid converting governance into a parallel executive bypassing career services.
  • Strengthen internal reform in the existing services:
    • Implement T.S.R. Subramanian (2013) judgment—Civil Services Boards should handle transfers and postings independently.
    • Provide functional autonomy to career officers to reduce the impact of political interference.

Conclusion (Factual Standpoint)

Lateral entry, when done transparently and inclusively, can serve as a complementary mechanism to fill knowledge gaps in governance. However, any framework that undermines reservation, meritocracy, or institutional autonomy risks shifting India from a constitutional merit-based system to a politicized spoils system. Therefore, merit must co-exist with social justice, and civil service reforms must strengthen, not weaken, the long-standing balance of professionalism, representation, and accountability.