New Delhi: The Centre’s decision to sack nine advisers to the Delhi government on the basis of a 1997 office order of the Ministry of Home Affairs has raised several questions, particularly as it has come three years after these posts were created and several of those targeted were either drawing only honorariums or had left the job long ago.
Logic behind ousting Atishi Marlena?
Several have asked if in keeping with the spirit of federalism, the Centre could have accorded an ex post facto approval to these posts or waited for the Supreme Court to deliver its judgment on the issue of powers of the elected government officials and the lieutenant governor in Delhi.
However, the most incisive query came from Delhi Congress president Ajay Maken, who questioned the logic behind sacking the likes of Atishi Marlena – who had been drawing an honorarium of just Re 1 per month – when others appointed similarly by the Delhi government were being allowed to continue in their jobs despite earning up to Rs 1.17 lakh per month.
Referring to the Shunglu Committee report, which was submitted on November 28, 2016, Maken said that 71 appointments by the Arvind Kejriwal government were not in accordance with the norms laid down by the MHA. However, he said, the Centre appears to be providing the Aam Aadmi Party a long rope by not acting against most of those appointed to these posts.
“Not only were these appointments illegal, many were [also] given salaries/reimbursement from taxpayers money up to Rs 1.30 lakh per month. It had never happened earlier,” Maken said, noting that the action against Marlena, who as an adviser to deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia had been closely involved with the much-lauded education reforms in Delhi, was uncalled for since she was drawing a paltry amount.
Similarly, he said, there was little logic behind going after Raghav Chaddha, who was adviser to the finance minister for just 45 days and had long quit the post after drawing a paltry sum of just Rs 2.50. “Even the Shunglu Committee had noted that Chaddha’s was a ‘closed chapter’.”
Maken added that on the other hand, several posts, including those of a driver who was appointed without even possessing a driving licence, were created and are being allowed to continue.
Chaddha, for his part, had accused the Centre of adopting to these “impressive diversionary tactics” to “divert attention from a spate of rapes, cash crunch, etc.”
Incidentally, of the nine appointments which have been declared void ab initio by the order of the General Administration Department citing the letter, dated April 10, 2018, received from the MHA, four had been lying vacant since the occupants had long left them. The MHA order had noted that “no prior approval of the Central government has been taken for creation of said posts on which these persons have been appointed on co-terminus basis”.
Pick and choose in targeting opponents
Maken’s argument is that the Centre is trying to create sympathy for AAP ahead of the 2019 Lok Sabha polls as it wants to keep the Congress – which is its strongest opponent – at bay. Political intent of the statement apart, his arguments have raised the issue of how the Centre adopts a pick and choose policy while going after its political opponents. Also, why did it take three years for the Modi government to act in the matter?
While it is true that “services” – which includes all matters pertaining to appointment, transfer and suspension of Delhi government employees – falls under the purview of the Union government as per a notification issued on May 21, 2015, it is being questioned if the Centre could have accorded ex post facto approval to these considering that several of the appointees were doing appreciable work.
The issue has snowballed into a major controversy as among those sacked is Marlena, an alumnus of St. Stephens College and Oxford University and a Rhodes scholar, who has been working on education and health in Delhi.
‘Marlena prime target, others named to obscure facts’
In fact, following her sacking, an angry Sisodia charged that she was the prime target of the move, as the Centre wanted to undermine Delhi’s education system, and that the other eight advisers had been removed in a “bid to obscure facts”. “The target for this order is Atishi Marlena. It’s because she’s key to improving the education system in Delhi,” he had said.
Sisodia had also accused Prime Minister Narendra Modi of ensuring that all good work in Delhi came to a halt. He made the remarks because apart from bringing about improvements in school education, Marlena was also closely involved with the much-acclaimed mohalla clinics programme of the Kejriwal government.
For her part, talking to news portal Newslaundry, Marlena said the Centre was wary of the changes being brought about in the education sector. “If you look at the big picture, for a while, they [Central government] have been trying to destabilise us. The bureaucrats are effectively on strike. How is the government working? It is working through its advisors, its political nominees. Now they want to put that to a standstill.”
It remains to be seen if she and other ‘advisers’ like her would still be able to contribute to the working of the Kejriwal government in Delhi and, if so, in what capacity.