Editor,

I wish to draw the attention of the chief minister, the ministers concerned, principal secretaries, and heads of departments to a matter that deserves urgent administrative attention.

Several engineering departments, including the PWD, RWD, PHE&WS and WRD, continue to have officers functioning on an 'in-charge' basis against important posts for prolonged periods. At the same time, there are reportedly regular assistant engineers who are functioning as ASWs/attached officers, or are without independent subdivisions. In some cases, even senior junior engineers are reportedly working under officers holding such in-charge responsibilities.

This creates an obvious question: if regular officers are available, why should temporary arrangements continue indefinitely? An in-charge arrangement is meant to address a temporary administrative necessity. It should not become a parallel system of appointment.

When such arrangements continue for years, they can affect transparency, seniority, morale and accountability, besides creating unnecessary concentration of administrative and financial powers.

This is not an allegation against any individual officer; the concern is with a system that can create opportunities for favouritism, discretion and lack of institutional accountability.

The chief minister has repeatedly spoken of zero tolerance towards corruption and wrongdoing, and of bringing transparency and good governance to the state. If that vision is to become a reality, administrative practices that create avoidable opacity must also be addressed. Preventing corruption is not merely about punishing wrongdoing; it is also about creating systems in which accountability is clear and discretion is minimised.

I therefore earnestly appeal to the government to review and gradually abolish prolonged in-charge arrangements wherever regular and eligible officers are available. DPCs and regular postings should be conducted in a time-bound manner, while unavoidable in-charge arrangements should be strictly temporary, reasoned and periodically reviewed. Seniority, eligibility and administrative necessity should form the basis of such arrangements - not personal preference.

Arunachal Pradesh is entering a crucial phase of infrastructure development. We need an engineering administration where the right person holds the right post, authority is matched with accountability, and merit and seniority are respected.

This is not a demand against any officer. It is a demand for a better system. If genuine administrative reform and meaningful development are the goals, it is time to end the culture of making temporary arrangements permanent.

I hope the authorities concerned will take cognisance of this issue in the larger interest of transparent governance, administrative fairness and the people of Arunachal.

A member of the engineering fraternity