Lateral Entry to the post of Join Secratory

krr

https://twitter.com/ashutosh83B/status/1006094422159843328

https://twitter.com/ashutosh83B/status/1006094422159843328

.

krr

there was some limited exam type few years back for lateral entry into ips for serving dsp in state police, capf. today no one even remembers it . without going into merits of the proposal, ias lobby is even stronger than ips lobby and its not easy to sustain these things for too long. but yes, if we have a govt with brute majority like now even next year after the elections, these proposals have strong chance to achieve perpetuity

gtfho

If folks like Raghuram Rajan, or Montek Singh Ahluwalia can be brought in at the JS level why not. Why must the people persist with those who excelled at cramming spectrum chaap itihaas hundreds of moons ago! But I'm sure they will not allow this through so easily; as even babus are allowed to apply, many of these seats will go to them only.

Do you really think they care about people like Raghuram Rajan? They only care about appointing pet sycophants in the government so they can pose no hurdle in their path. There will be no transparency and objectivity left.

We will see how that pans out. This is good in theory and since it is only for 10 posts what is the harm? It is not right to summarily reject an opening up of the government: a 19th century apparatus cannot be left untouched in the 21st century. Bring the IAS down! Even if Modi loses, they should persist with this. Bureaucrats will be egged to perform better and keep skilling themselves instead if becoming fossilised dinosaurs.

I agree with that. Lets see how it goes. I don't trust this government's intentions but the bureaucracy needs an overhaul for sure. Better than these aspirants toiling hard for 5-6 years just to get into IAS when they can pursue their passion and get a lateral entry after gaining experience in their respective fields.

domino

In 2012 UPA had introduced lateral entry into ips for capf,army,and state police officers . This is nothing compared to it. Just 10 joint secy posts. To get an appointment to JS post ias officers had to give interview till now. Due to non availability of experts govt is forced to seek lateral entry. When ias officer who is skilled not available what will govt do. Now the govt will allow the ias to work in pvt sector...which is a good news.

Katyadchutiya69

In 2012 UPA had introduced lateral entry into ips for capf,army,and state police officers . This is nothing compared to it. Just 10 joint secy posts. To get an appointment to JS post ias officers had to give interview till now. Due to non availability of experts govt is forced to seek lateral entry. When ias officer who is skilled not available what will govt do. Now the govt will allow the ias to work in pvt sector...which is a good news.

That was limited competitive examination. It was struck by the court . But this lateral scheme is to remain here and if we are supposed to flourish asa nation , domain experts are a must!!

PeterQuill

I read many of the comments on this thread. Almost all of them are criticizing the move. Right at the outset, I'll say that I respect the opinions stated in all the comments above.

I think there are too many cinephiles on this Forum but not many sportsmen.
Let's take badminton. In every second of the game you have to improvise. Every damn opponent is different and brings in a new set of skills and shrewdness. You can't throw in the racket and say this is wrong, I'll play only by my style.

I've seen people in aspirant community cribbing about almost every damn thing and especially every change the government brings in. In my opinion, some 10 lateral entries at JS level aren't going to bring down the whole edifice of IAS fraternity which is around 5000 officers strong.
And maybe it will even bring in some old time aspirants into bureaucracy who tried and failed during their time as aspirant and moved on to next best things.

I'm not at all defending the government. I'm just asking people to keep an open mind.
The only constant thing is change. It's we who ultimately have to adapt. And those who adapt, survive and succeed. Just like in a game of badminton.

there is something called wildcard entry in badminton tournament. Lin Dan has been introduced in many tournaments in this way, often winning most of these. A single entry among 1000s of participants changing the end result. Moreover, the choice to introduce him is made by sponsors, based on their economic interests; not specifically to improve the game.

Now, the finals did improve sometimes due to this; giving us many Lin Dan vs Lee Chong Wei matches. But administration of a country is way different, stakes are much higher and so are the vested interests. Also the scope for the "talented" is much wider; instead of getting Lin Dan for badminton we might get Vijay Malya for bureaucracy.

No one is opposing lateral entry in totality.It's the context ,the background in which it is introduced and perhaps self interest to some extent that makes most of us senile folks question the move.

You completely misread me sir. Completely.

When I gave analogy of badminton, I meant the game in itself and not the tournament superstructure. In the game the opponents come up with all sorts of tricks up their sleeves and we have to be ready for those - say the backhand overhead cross-court drop while we are expecting a rally shot at third line.

So, we have to be ready for whatever government comes up with. In this case, government came up with lateral entry at JS level for 10 posts only. In essence, this move doesn't affect entry level aspirants AT ALL. It might just be a pilot project to see if such move enhances efficiency of administration.
But still we are writing pages after pages of comments criticizing the move all the more when there is a super-powerful IAS association to oppose the move.

I'll say we are foolishly intruding in the center court and disturbing the big boys' game going on there. Not cool.

temporaryAccount

I read many of the comments on this thread. Almost all of them are criticizing the move. Right at the outset, I'll say that I respect the opinions stated in all the comments above.

I think there are too many cinephiles on this Forum but not many sportsmen.
Let's take badminton. In every second of the game you have to improvise. Every damn opponent is different and brings in a new set of skills and shrewdness. You can't throw in the racket and say this is wrong, I'll play only by my style.

I've seen people in aspirant community cribbing about almost every damn thing and especially every change the government brings in. In my opinion, some 10 lateral entries at JS level aren't going to bring down the whole edifice of IAS fraternity which is around 5000 officers strong.
And maybe it will even bring in some old time aspirants into bureaucracy who tried and failed during their time as aspirant and moved on to next best things.

I'm not at all defending the government. I'm just asking people to keep an open mind.
The only constant thing is change. It's we who ultimately have to adapt. And those who adapt, survive and succeed. Just like in a game of badminton.

there is something called wildcard entry in badminton tournament. Lin Dan has been introduced in many tournaments in this way, often winning most of these. A single entry among 1000s of participants changing the end result. Moreover, the choice to introduce him is made by sponsors, based on their economic interests; not specifically to improve the game.

Now, the finals did improve sometimes due to this; giving us many Lin Dan vs Lee Chong Wei matches. But administration of a country is way different, stakes are much higher and so are the vested interests. Also the scope for the "talented" is much wider; instead of getting Lin Dan for badminton we might get Vijay Malya for bureaucracy.

No one is opposing lateral entry in totality.It's the context ,the background in which it is introduced and perhaps self interest to some extent that makes most of us senile folks question the move.

You completely misread me sir. Completely.

When I gave analogy of badminton, I meant the game in itself and not the tournament superstructure. In the game the opponents come up with all sorts of tricks up their sleeves and we have to be ready for those - say the backhand overhead cross-court drop while we are expecting a rally shot at third line.

So, we have to be ready for whatever government comes up with. In this case, government came up with lateral entry at JS level for 10 posts only. In essence, this move doesn't affect entry level aspirants AT ALL. It might just be a pilot project to see if such move enhances efficiency of administration.
But still we are writing pages after pages of comments criticizing the move all the more when there is a super-powerful IAS association to oppose the move.

I'll say we are foolishly intruding in the center court and disturbing the big boys' game going on there. Not cool.

I changed the analogy deliberately as it is more apt. It's about the "superstructure" and not about changed upsc game. Response to this year's unexpected prelim pattern is more conducive to your analogy, but lateral entry is not.

We don't have to be "ready for whatever government comes up with", government has to come up with what is required in the interest of the country. We are not fighting against the government. On the contrary we all want to be in it as a permanent executive.

Moreover, the move impacts everybody. In the background of yearly falling seats ( around 400 now), I feel I am more directly impacted, so more vocal. Like I said earlier, I am not against the move completely but the timing, present context and admittedly a semblance of self interest forces me to speak (plus I am bored and don't feel like studying as of now).

Also, I don't care much for IAS lobby. But I do care for the "big boys' game" that impacts my country but in which I don't get a say.

PeterQuill

I read many of the comments on this thread. Almost all of them are criticizing the move. Right at the outset, I'll say that I respect the opinions stated in all the comments above.

I think there are too many cinephiles on this Forum but not many sportsmen.
Let's take badminton. In every second of the game you have to improvise. Every damn opponent is different and brings in a new set of skills and shrewdness. You can't throw in the racket and say this is wrong, I'll play only by my style.

I've seen people in aspirant community cribbing about almost every damn thing and especially every change the government brings in. In my opinion, some 10 lateral entries at JS level aren't going to bring down the whole edifice of IAS fraternity which is around 5000 officers strong.
And maybe it will even bring in some old time aspirants into bureaucracy who tried and failed during their time as aspirant and moved on to next best things.

I'm not at all defending the government. I'm just asking people to keep an open mind.
The only constant thing is change. It's we who ultimately have to adapt. And those who adapt, survive and succeed. Just like in a game of badminton.

there is something called wildcard entry in badminton tournament. Lin Dan has been introduced in many tournaments in this way, often winning most of these. A single entry among 1000s of participants changing the end result. Moreover, the choice to introduce him is made by sponsors, based on their economic interests; not specifically to improve the game.

Now, the finals did improve sometimes due to this; giving us many Lin Dan vs Lee Chong Wei matches. But administration of a country is way different, stakes are much higher and so are the vested interests. Also the scope for the "talented" is much wider; instead of getting Lin Dan for badminton we might get Vijay Malya for bureaucracy.

No one is opposing lateral entry in totality.It's the context ,the background in which it is introduced and perhaps self interest to some extent that makes most of us senile folks question the move.

You completely misread me sir. Completely.

When I gave analogy of badminton, I meant the game in itself and not the tournament superstructure. In the game the opponents come up with all sorts of tricks up their sleeves and we have to be ready for those - say the backhand overhead cross-court drop while we are expecting a rally shot at third line.

So, we have to be ready for whatever government comes up with. In this case, government came up with lateral entry at JS level for 10 posts only. In essence, this move doesn't affect entry level aspirants AT ALL. It might just be a pilot project to see if such move enhances efficiency of administration.
But still we are writing pages after pages of comments criticizing the move all the more when there is a super-powerful IAS association to oppose the move.

I'll say we are foolishly intruding in the center court and disturbing the big boys' game going on there. Not cool.

I changed the analogy deliberately as it is more apt. It's about the "superstructure" and not about changed upsc game. Response to this year's unexpected prelim pattern is more conducive to your analogy, but lateral entry is not.

We don't have to be "ready for whatever government comes up with", government has to come up with what is required in the interest of the country. We are not fighting against the government. On the contrary we all want to be in it as a permanent executive.

Moreover, the move impacts everybody. In the background of yearly falling seats ( around 400 now), I feel I am more directly impacted, so more vocal. Like I said earlier, I am not against the move completely but the timing, present context and admittedly a semblance of self interest forces me to speak (plus I am bored and don't feel like studying as of now).

Also, I don't care much for IAS lobby. But I do care for the "big boys' game" that impacts my country but in which I don't get a say.

I sort of agree with your arguments. Your arguments are eloquently framed too.

I'm taking you are a good badminton player/ aficionado yourself. Me - I consider myself as a very good badminton player.

pizzza

Worry about the present, the future will anyways be better

temporaryAccount

I read many of the comments on this thread. Almost all of them are criticizing the move. Right at the outset, I'll say that I respect the opinions stated in all the comments above.

I think there are too many cinephiles on this Forum but not many sportsmen.
Let's take badminton. In every second of the game you have to improvise. Every damn opponent is different and brings in a new set of skills and shrewdness. You can't throw in the racket and say this is wrong, I'll play only by my style.

I've seen people in aspirant community cribbing about almost every damn thing and especially every change the government brings in. In my opinion, some 10 lateral entries at JS level aren't going to bring down the whole edifice of IAS fraternity which is around 5000 officers strong.
And maybe it will even bring in some old time aspirants into bureaucracy who tried and failed during their time as aspirant and moved on to next best things.

I'm not at all defending the government. I'm just asking people to keep an open mind.
The only constant thing is change. It's we who ultimately have to adapt. And those who adapt, survive and succeed. Just like in a game of badminton.

there is something called wildcard entry in badminton tournament. Lin Dan has been introduced in many tournaments in this way, often winning most of these. A single entry among 1000s of participants changing the end result. Moreover, the choice to introduce him is made by sponsors, based on their economic interests; not specifically to improve the game.

Now, the finals did improve sometimes due to this; giving us many Lin Dan vs Lee Chong Wei matches. But administration of a country is way different, stakes are much higher and so are the vested interests. Also the scope for the "talented" is much wider; instead of getting Lin Dan for badminton we might get Vijay Malya for bureaucracy.

No one is opposing lateral entry in totality.It's the context ,the background in which it is introduced and perhaps self interest to some extent that makes most of us senile folks question the move.

You completely misread me sir. Completely.

When I gave analogy of badminton, I meant the game in itself and not the tournament superstructure. In the game the opponents come up with all sorts of tricks up their sleeves and we have to be ready for those - say the backhand overhead cross-court drop while we are expecting a rally shot at third line.

So, we have to be ready for whatever government comes up with. In this case, government came up with lateral entry at JS level for 10 posts only. In essence, this move doesn't affect entry level aspirants AT ALL. It might just be a pilot project to see if such move enhances efficiency of administration.
But still we are writing pages after pages of comments criticizing the move all the more when there is a super-powerful IAS association to oppose the move.

I'll say we are foolishly intruding in the center court and disturbing the big boys' game going on there. Not cool.

I changed the analogy deliberately as it is more apt. It's about the "superstructure" and not about changed upsc game. Response to this year's unexpected prelim pattern is more conducive to your analogy, but lateral entry is not.

We don't have to be "ready for whatever government comes up with", government has to come up with what is required in the interest of the country. We are not fighting against the government. On the contrary we all want to be in it as a permanent executive.

Moreover, the move impacts everybody. In the background of yearly falling seats ( around 400 now), I feel I am more directly impacted, so more vocal. Like I said earlier, I am not against the move completely but the timing, present context and admittedly a semblance of self interest forces me to speak (plus I am bored and don't feel like studying as of now).

Also, I don't care much for IAS lobby. But I do care for the "big boys' game" that impacts my country but in which I don't get a say.

I sort of agree with your arguments. Your arguments are eloquently framed too.

I'm taking you are a good badminton player/ aficionado yourself. Me - I consider myself as a very good badminton player.

Can't even beat my sister. But she is trying to go professional.