Title: Consideration and passage of the Banking Service Commission (Repeal) Bill, 2002.
THE MINISTER OF STATE IN THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE (SHRI BALASAHEB VIKHE PATIL): I beg to move:
“That the Bill to repeal the Banking Service Commission Act, 1984, be taken into consideration.”
Sir, all I would say is that we are just repealing this Act.
(ends)
MR. CHAIRMAN : Motion moved:
“That the Bill to repeal the Banking Service Commission Act, 1984, be taken into consideration.”
Now, Shri Pravin Rashtrapal may speak.
(PATAN): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman Sir. From the Bill, it appears that it is very simple, but it is not that simple. In fact, according to the Statement of Objects and Reasons, it explains that in our Parliament, when we introduce this type of Bill, it proves that there is a failure of the system.
It is admitted that the Banking Services Commission Act was enacted in 1984 to provide for the establishment of a commission for recruitment. From 1984 to the introduction of this Bill, either this Government or the previous Government has not appointed the commission. As a result, now they are approaching this august House for repealing the Bill.
But I want to invite the attention of the hon. Minister to the last three lines of paragraph 2 of the Bill. It reads as under:
“The question of establishing the commission was again reviewed in 1987 and it was decided that this may be deferred as the restructured system of the Banking Service Recruitment Board was working satisfactorily for the recruitment of clerical cadre and officers of the banks.”
Here they have admitted that the Banking Service Recruitment Board was working satisfactorily in the banking sector. On the same page, they say something contrary to this. Kindly read para 3:
“Taking into consideration the decline in manpower requirements due to consolidation and mechanisation a proposal was made in the Budget Speech in the year 2001-02 to abolish the Banking Service Recruitment Board to provide greater autonomy to bank…”
This is self-contradictory. In para 2 they have admitted that the Banking Service Recruitment Boards were functioning satisfactorily and in para 3 they are referring to the lecture of the hon. Finance Minister during the course of introduction of the Budget. He went on referring that the Banking Service Recruitment Board should be abolished. But he has not given reasons for abolishing the Banking Service Recruitment Board.
At this juncture, I invite your attention that in our country, one of the biggest democracies in the world, we have got a Union Public Service Commission for recruitment to the Indian Foreign Service, Indian Police Service, Indian Revenue Service, Indian Accounts and Audit Service, Indian Postal Service, Indian Railway Service. Recruitment to the Class I post is directly made by the Union Public Service Commission.
This very Central Government has introduced regional level Staff Selection Commissions which are taking care of recruitment of Group ””””C”””” & ””””D”””” staff. We also appreciate and we all will agree that after the nationalisation of the banks and after the introduction of the Banking Service Recruitment Board, the recruitment of weaker sections of the society as required under the Constitution was properly made.
With the experience of Gujarat, I will tell that in Gujarat we have got Bank of Baroda, State Bank of Saurashtra, Dena Bank and Bank of India. These are the banks which have maximum branches in the State of Gujarat. If you go before 30 years to any office of these banks, you will have people from a particular caste, with a particular Surname only because there was no reservation. The reservation in the banking sector came only after the nationalisation in the year 1976. After the introduction of the Banking Service Recruitment Board, where there was a representative either from the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes in the Interview Committee, I will admit, justice was done to the people belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
Now, in our country we have got reservation also for other backward classes for recruitment at the stage of entry.
There is no reservation at the stage of promotion for O.B.C. but there is reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other backward classes as far as recruitment to Government services is concerned. I want to know from the hon. Minister why the Government is still having the UPSC when they want to abolish the Banking Service Recruitment Board. Why is the Government still having Staff Selection Commission for recruitment to Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ posts? The Central Government appreciates the requirement for the Union Public Service Commission, the Staff Selection Commission and the Railway Recruitment Board as far as Central Government appointments are concerned. This very Central Government is abolishing the Banking Service Recruitment Board. There is no explanation from the side of the Government. This House needs to be informed for what reasons they are abolishing the Banking Service Recruitment Board. The only reason given is that the Act was passed in 1984 but till today no Banking Service Commission has been appointed. Who is to be blamed for this – Members of Parliament or the party in power? We need to be enlightened of the reasons for the abolition of the Banking Service Recruitment Board.
We need to be informed how these nationalised banks would implement the policy of the Government if they were authorised to make their own recruitment. Even now, they are not implementing the policies properly. Once the Banking Service Recruitment Board is abolished, I am afraid, the policy of reservation for the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other backward classes would be jeopardised. I want to know how the Government is going to protect their interests.
They are informing us that because of mechanisation and automation there is no requirement for the Banking Service Recruitment Board. I do not agree with that. Maybe, right now, there is no requirement for the Board because in the place of clerks, you would require data entry operators. The old clerk might not know how to operate a computer. So, as a result of automation, maybe, the method of recruitment might change and you would conduct objective and practical tests. But after five years, when somebody dies or retires or takes up voluntary retirement, you would require a recruitment board. How do you say that there is no necessity for a service commission or a recruitment board? After five or ten years, there might be a good number of retirements from the banking sector. Those who had not opted for voluntary retirement would retire after five years. So, after five years, how would you appoint officers in the banking sector? After five years, how are you going to recruit personnel ranging from data entry operators to chartered accountants, required for the banking sector? All these aspects are not explained here. This Bill appears to be a very simple repealing Bill. There is no problem about it but we must know what facilities, what protection and what mechanism are provided for by the Central Government.
(CHIRAYINKIL): Sir, I am dealing with a situation that is unheard of. The Banking Service Commission Act was passed in 1984 by this House. The Act was never given effect to from the day it was passed. We had discussed matters in this House and the Act was passed but the Government did not implement that Act till today. It is a very peculiar situation, unheard of in the history of the statute book.
The Banking Service Commission Act was passed to give effect to some social commitments and the Government felt that the Banking Service Recruitment Board was not enough. So, a Service Commission was to be constituted.
With that in mind, this Act was passed. After passing the Act, the Government is having a flexible mind. After passing the Act, the Government came to the conclusion that continuance of the Board is enough. There is no need for constituting a Commission. That was the approach given by the Government. After passing this Act, the Board continued.
Sir, as pointed out by my learned friend, the Government came to the conclusion that although the Board is doing the work satisfactorily, it is not feasible for the Government to continue with the Board as such. The reason alleged is that some mechanism or computerisation had come. What is the net result?