By Moa Jamir
The ongoing campaign by the Joint Coordination Committee (JCC) of CANSSEA, FONSESA, NIDA, NSSA, and NF&ASA, including a scheduled ‘pen down strike’ from October 14, has stirred much-needed debate on meritocracy in Nagaland’s public service. At a time when faith in public institutions is waning, the collective stand of these service bodies has rightly placed timely focus on merit and transparency in the process of inducting officers from the State Services into the Indian Administrative Service (IAS).
According to the JCC, under the IAS (Recruitment) Rules, 1954, induction into the IAS takes place through the State Civil Service (SCS), such as the Nagaland Civil Service (NCS), and the Non-State Civil Service (Non-SCS), comprising gazetted officers holding equivalent posts. Only one-third of IAS positions in a state can be filled through promotion or induction from these services, and within that quota, just 15% is reserved for Non-SCS officers, ensuring that the process is based strictly on “outstanding merit and ability.”
It was against this backdrop that the State Government issued a Vacancy Circular on March 10, 2025, for the induction of Non-SCS officers into the IAS, providing a 15-day application window. However, the circular was allegedly withdrawn on March 25, just one day after the submission deadline, without any “justifiable reason,” raising suspicions of “procedural manipulation.” This appeared to be confirmed, according to the JCC, when the State Cabinet met on March 27 and directed the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department to re-advertise the circular “as per Central Guidelines.”
It was baffling that the same Vacancy Circular, which had been acceptable on previous occasions, was suddenly deemed defective and replaced, the JCC noted. The JCC’s contentions are not unfounded, as merit, fairness, and transparency are indispensable to good governance, and ascension to the nation’s top bureaucracy demands the highest standards of competence and integrity. Thus, the government’s action naturally raised questions about procedural consistency and the commitment to merit-based principles.
Yet, even as the JCC calls upon the government to uphold these ideals, it must also be acknowledged that the pursuit of merit and transparency cannot be one-sided. The same associations represent the crème of Nagaland’s bureaucracy—the officers and professionals who frame policies, drive administration, and implement recruitment and welfare schemes across departments. The influence runs deep, from secretariat corridors to district offices, and the responsibility for good governance does not rest solely on the political leadership but equally extends to the bureaucratic machinery that executes and sustains the system.
This is pertinent, as Nagaland’s public service has long wrestled with the shadow of alleged corruption and backdoor appointments. Over the years, anecdotal accounts have often painted a sobering picture of appointments made through influence rather than qualification, of tenders manipulated, and of welfare benefits diverted from intended beneficiaries. While these may not implicate every official, they reflect a systemic malaise, and it would be disingenuous to deny that sections of the bureaucracy, too, have been complicit in sustaining such practices.
This, however, is not to diminish the legitimacy of the JCC’s concerns. Their protest serves as an important reminder that governance cannot survive on expediency. The credibility of the state’s institutions depends on their ability to resist political pressure and uphold fairness as a non-negotiable value. The government should therefore engage with the associations’ demands constructively and ensure a transparent process for IAS induction.
Beyond the immediate concerns, if the associations truly believe in upholding meritocracy, the same principle must guide internal administrative behaviour hereafter. Integrity in governance must begin within; demanding merit and transparency from the government while ignoring lapses within the bureaucracy risks sounding selective. Ultimately, merit and transparency hereafter must not remain a slogan but become a shared discipline binding both policymakers and implementers, and daily lived experience for he citizens.
For any feedback, drop a line to jamir.moa@gmail.com
