TAGS :
- Subtotal:
- $130.00
With the implementation of the Theatre Command System, the issue of human resources in the Indian armed forces is expected to present increasing challenges. It is therefore imperative to address the existing issues before restructuring takes place. There are HR issues that have persisted in integrated tri-Services structures such as the Andaman & Nicobar Command and Strategic Forces Command. These issues concern differing numerical assessment standards in the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) format across Services, discrepancies in tenure policies in higher ranks, and variations in rank structures. While these issues are not new, their significance will be magnified in integrated organisations.
The ACR system is used in all governmental organisations in India to assess officials' suitability for promotion and potential for higher posts. The competition for selection is more intense in the military due to its hierarchical structure, and this intensifies as one moves up the ladder. The ACR follows a reporting chain that mirrors the command and control system, consisting of the Initiating Officer (IO), followed by the Reviewing Officer (RO), Senior Reviewing Officer (SRO), and in some instances, the Next Senior Reviewing Officer (NSRO), who is usually the Chief of the Service. In joint/integrated organisations, the IO/RO/SRO could be officers from a different Service than the one being reported upon. The problem is that officials in the reporting chain adhere to the prevailing norms of numerical assessment standards in their respective Services, which have significant variations.
The ACR reporting system in the Army has become very liberal over time, with a large percentage of officers marked closer and closer to the highest grade of nine. This norm will inevitably manifest itself in the ACR rendered on all officers, including those from the Navy and Air Force. Naval and Air Force officers receiving reports from their Army counterparts in the chain of command are advantaged over their peers who are reported upon by officers of their own Service. Meanwhile, the Navy is the strictest, and the Air Force slightly less so. Therefore, an Army officer receiving a report from a Naval or Air Force officer is at a disadvantage in relation to his peers from his own Service, which could impact their promotion, which must be conducted by the promotion boards of their respective Service. This anomaly must be addressed, and a system must be developed to harmonise the differences; otherwise, court cases are likely to increase, leading to significant issues in personnel management systems of the three Services. While several methods have been formulated by each Service to tackle the problem, the need to harmonise the ACR reporting standards at the joint Service level is imperative but challenging to achieve.