The Madhya Pradesh government is facing criticism over delays in appointing senior State Administrative Service officers to key field positions, with nearly 20 districts reportedly operating without regularly posted Additional District Magistrates (ADMs). The prolonged imbalance in administrative postings has also triggered dissatisfaction among younger officers, many of whom are currently assigned desk roles in the state secretariat instead of field responsibilities.

Officials and administrative sources said the disruption in posting arrangements began before the Lok Sabha elections and has continued despite changes in administrative priorities.

ADM Posts Remain Vacant

Several districts across Madhya Pradesh are reportedly functioning without full-time Additional Collectors, forcing collectors to manage responsibilities through additional charge arrangements. Administrative sources indicated that major districts including Indore, Gwalior and Jabalpur currently have vacant ADM positions despite multiple sanctioned posts in these cities. The situation has raised concerns about administrative efficiency, especially in districts handling large populations and high governance workloads.

Impact On District Administration

Officials familiar with district-level functioning said vacant ADM posts increase pressure on collectors and existing officers, affecting day-to-day administrative coordination. Additional Collectors are responsible for handling revenue matters, law and order coordination, election duties and implementation of government schemes. In the absence of regular appointments, many districts are depending on temporary arrangements and additional responsibilities assigned to available officers. Sources said the shortage is impacting both decision-making speed and monitoring of administrative work in some districts.

Young Officers Seek Opportunity

A section of State Administrative Service officers has expressed dissatisfaction over the current posting pattern. Many newly recruited and junior officers are presently serving as under secretaries, OSDs and desk officers in the ministry and departmental headquarters. According to officials, several young officers believe the government is not fully utilising their administrative capabilities by keeping them away from field assignments. They argue that junior officers should be given opportunities to work as Deputy Collectors, SDMs, Joint Collectors and Additional Collectors to gain practical administrative experience.

SDM-Level Posts Also Affected

The issue is not limited to ADM positions. Administrative sources said several sanctioned posts in the Joint Collector and SDM cadre also remain unfilled in different districts. Joint Collectors and SDMs play a crucial role in maintaining local administration, handling public grievances and coordinating revenue and law-and-order duties at the sub-divisional level. Officers said delays in these postings are affecting administrative continuity and increasing workload on existing field officials.

IAS Officers Preferred In Some Roles

Sources within the administrative setup indicated that several positions traditionally assigned to State Administrative Service officers, including Chief Executive Officer posts in district panchayats, are increasingly being handled by young IAS officers. This has added to concerns among state cadre officers, who feel their promotion opportunities and field exposure are being reduced. Some officers argued that experienced senior officials currently posted in ministries could instead be assigned desk responsibilities, allowing younger officers to take up district-level roles.

Vacancies Reported In Multiple Districts

Districts where ADM posts are reportedly vacant include Jabalpur, Narsinghpur, Narmadapuram, Sehore, Shajapur, Barwani, Burhanpur, Gwalior, Chhatarpur, Niwari and Indore, among others. Officials said the absence of regular postings in these districts has forced collectors to operate administrative systems through additional charges and temporary arrangements. The issue has also sparked internal discussion within administrative circles over manpower distribution and career progression opportunities for state service officers.

Many young officers selected through the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission are still posted in ministry offices instead of districts, according to administrative sources. Some officers believe earlier restrictions related to election duties and administrative exercises were cited as reasons for delaying transfers and field postings. However, they argue that such reasons no longer apply and appointments should now be regularised.

The controversial CGPSC 2003 scam case has once again come into national focus after the Supreme Court initiated efforts for an out-of-court settlement through a special resolution mechanism. The apex court has reportedly invited both petitioners and selected candidates to participate in a “Samadhan Samaroh” or special Lok Adalat aimed at resolving the long-pending dispute. The case relates to alleged irregularities in the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission examination conducted in 2003. The controversy has remained under judicial review for nearly two decades and directly affects several officers currently serving in administrative positions.

Supreme Court Suggests Settlement

In the latest development, the Supreme Court has attempted to explore a negotiated settlement between the parties involved in the CGPSC 2003 scam case. Notices have reportedly been issued asking key stakeholders to appear before district legal services authorities in Mungeli and Kabirdham. The move is being seen as an effort to resolve one of the state’s longest-running recruitment disputes through mutual consensus rather than prolonged litigation. However, petitioner Varsha Dongre has publicly stated that there is little scope for compromise in the matter because the High Court had already delivered a detailed judgment in favour of the petitioners.

Petitioner Rejects Compromise

Speaking on the latest proceedings, petitioner Varsha Dongre maintained that the issue should now be decided strictly on legal grounds. According to her, the Chhattisgarh High Court had already identified serious irregularities in the recruitment process and directed corrective action years ago. She argued that instead of seeking compromise, the High Court judgment should be implemented fully. The petitioner also stated that the matter has remained pending for several years due to the stay granted by the Supreme Court. The latest comments have once again intensified discussions surrounding transparency and accountability in public recruitment examinations.

High Court Order in 2017

The CGPSC 2003 scam case witnessed a major turning point in 2017 when the Chhattisgarh High Court cancelled the selection list prepared through the examination process. The High Court directed authorities to conduct fresh re-scaling of marks and prepare a revised merit list. The judgment also instructed that answer sheets in certain optional subjects, particularly anthropology, should be reassessed according to proper evaluation standards. If implemented fully, the decision could reportedly affect the service positions of several officers, including deputy collectors and other administrative officials selected through the disputed recruitment process.

Allegations of Irregularities

The controversy surrounding the CGPSC 2003 scam case first surfaced after the implementation of the Right to Information Act in 2005. Candidates including Varsha Dongre and Ravindra Singh reportedly obtained official documents through RTI applications that pointed towards discrepancies in evaluation and scaling methods. According to records cited in court proceedings, some candidates allegedly received unusually high marks despite writing minimal answers, while others who attempted complete papers secured comparatively low scores. Questions were also raised regarding the scaling system used during evaluation, with allegations that candidates from the same subject stream received inconsistent moderation despite similar scores.

PSC Admitted Errors

Court records indicate that after receiving notice from the High Court, the Public Service Commission reportedly acknowledged mistakes in the selection process in 2005 itself. Despite this, the legal dispute continued for years before the High Court delivered its detailed judgment nearly 11 years later. The prolonged delay has often been criticised by petitioners who claim that justice was delayed despite early indications of irregularities. Legal experts say the case became significant because it raised larger concerns regarding fairness in state-level recruitment examinations and administrative accountability.

147 Officers Potentially Affected

The High Court judgment reportedly had implications for around 147 selected officers linked to the disputed examination. Officials selected through the process feared that revised scaling and merit calculations could alter rankings and service allocations. Several officers, including deputy collectors, later challenged the High Court decision before the Supreme Court. After preliminary hearings, the apex court stayed implementation of the High Court order, allowing the selected officers to continue in service while the matter remained pending. Experts familiar with public service recruitment processes say fresh scaling could substantially alter the original merit list.

Legal and Administrative Impact

The CGPSC 2003 scam case continues to remain one of the most debated recruitment controversies in Chhattisgarh’s administrative history. The outcome of the case could influence future recruitment policies, examination transparency measures, and evaluation systems used by state commissions. Legal observers believe the Supreme Court’s attempt to encourage settlement reflects efforts to reduce prolonged litigation involving public appointments. However, conflicting positions taken by petitioners and selected candidates may make consensus difficult. The issue also continues to attract attention because many officers selected through the disputed process currently occupy important administrative roles.

-----------