Ranchi, Aug. 23: While nobody seems to be happy with bureaucrats in the state, the bureaucrats themselves appear far from happy with their lot.

Poor cadre management, they say, is playing havoc with the morale and performance of officers and cite the manner in which deputy commissioners are being posted in the state. Unlike in Bihar, they claim, neither are the districts classified into different categories nor has the state been able to formulate a transfer policy.

As a result, they say, relatively senior officers are getting posted to smaller districts, some of them on the verge of being promoted to the rank of secretary. In sharp contrast, several relatively junior officers continue to be posted in the headquarters while others ?languish? in the districts. In Bihar too, lobbying played a role in transfer and posting, they acknowledge.

But in Jharkhand, it is only lobbying which appears to have emerged as the most important factor. Little or no distinction is being made between performers and non-performers, they complain, or between important and less important districts. Ranchi and Simdega have the same importance and priority as far as the state government is concerned.

Had there been dramatic improvement in the smaller districts, the policy could have been justified. But that clearly has not been the case.

Seniority, even in government services, might have lost much of its relevance, but then there needs to be some method in the madness, some design and some policy and planning principles guiding such posting.

True, officers are expected to serve anywhere, they say, but when the government transfers a deputy commissioner from East Singhbhum (read Jamshedpur) to Garhwa or Chatra, the officer might feel disheartened and disturbed enough to perform below par. This can be avoided if the districts are graded in order of size and importance and officers first posted in smaller districts and then gradually given the charge of more important and larger districts. In the absence of such gradation and policy, the officers claim, frustration has been creeping in.

For instance, a 1987 batch IAS officer takes over as the director, social welfare from an officer ten years junior to him and who served as a probationer under him.

Similarly, a 1988 batch officer hands over charge of deputy commissioner, Pakur to an officer who is 10 years senior to him.

While a 1997 batch officer, Beela Rajesh, is posted as deputy commissioner, Dhanbad, the 1990 batch officer, Alok Goyal, is posted as deputy commissioner, Jamtara, a relatively less significant district.

Such examples can be multiplied. Amrendra Pratap Singh (1991) was sent off to Bokaro, a relatively smaller district, while Vinay Choubey (1999) was made the deputy commissioner of Palamau. S.S. Meena (1993) was posted as the deputy commissioner of Koderma while Rahul Purwar (1999) was posted as the deputy commissioner of Hazaribagh.

There should also be a cooling off period for officers who have spent three years in the districts. Rather than post them again to districts, other officers from the headquarters should be sent in to gain the required experience.

What?s more, non-performers are generally not put in charge of districts but in Jharkhand, the number of officers being fewer than the requirement, the state government may have a genuine compulsion in doing so.

Officers have a feeling that in the absence of established policies and rules, transfers are being effected at the whims and fancy of the chief minister or the chief secretary. Caste considerations and money, they feel, are also playing a role.

A senior IAS officer conceded that loyalty can be purchased these days and many of the officers no longer have any problem with being blatantly partisan.

Officers, who were exposed in Bihar, they pointed out, are merrily being given plum posts here in Jharkhand.