Let's begin with the oil sector since most of the PSUs here are affected by this. The country's second-largest oil producer, Oil India Limited, for example, still doesn't have a full-time chairman though it's been over four months since the last chief, N.N. Gogoi, retired. Currently, B.C. Bora is holding temporary charge, in addition to handling his own responsibilities as ONGC chief. Obviously, even the pathetic state of the country's oil exploration efforts hasn't convinced the government that either of the two jobs is important enough to have any person's undivided attention.

Similarly, Bharat Petroleum has two senior posts whichhaven't been filled for months. Interviews for the job of director (personnel), in fact, were held by the Public Enterprises Selection Board (PESB) as long ago as December. Of course, under the circumstances, it would be a bit ambitious to expect that the post of director (marketing) would be filled up -- interviews for this were conducted a mere two months ago.

In the case of the Indian Oil Corporation (IOC), interviews for the personnel post were held in November, while those for the director (R&D) were held a month ago. And while the post of director (marketing) has just been filled up, interviews for the post were held eight months ago.

The Gas Authority of India Limited (GAIL) hasn't had a director in charge of marketing for over two years. A fortnight ago, the person holding temporary charge (incidentally, also the PESB's first choice for the post) decided to join Petronet LNG.

The vital nature of these posts can be gauged from the fact that, at the functional level, these are the senior-mostpositions in the PSUs, with each director in charge of operations in marketing, finance and personnel. Another scandalous case where the chief executive has not been appointed, in this case for the last 19 months, is that of the Airports Authority of India (AAI). Indeed, except for 18 months between February 1995 and October 1996, AAI hasn't had a full-time chief for four years, and has been run by joint secretaries who have handled this in addition to their regular work. This, incidentally, has been the time of the Charkhi-Dadri accident, of various air traffic controller strikes and, of course, the controversy and mishandling of the Raytheon radar at the Delhi and Mumbai airports.

But, as the AAI case demonstrates most eloquently, petty politicking takes precedence over everything else in most instances. The PESB's first panel of recommendations was scrapped in 1996. Incidentally, one of the candidates, Anand Darbari, chosen by the PESB, has now filed a case against the chief vigilance commissioner (CVC)for what he considers to be a totally unfair and one-sided vigilance report which resulted in the panel being scrapped. A second panel was then constituted in October 1997. Even after the PESB's recommendations were made, valiant efforts were made by senior politicians to scrap the panel on the pretext that the AAI chief should have civil aviation experience. While it does make sense to generally promote deserving internal candidates, especially since they have a huge stake in the organisation, the politician in question was doing it to promote a candidate whom few would consider deserving.

A weapon used, almost without exception, in each one of these cases, is to bring trumped up corruption allegations and begin investigating them. It took over eight months, for example, to get a vigilance clearance for Yogendra Prasad for the post of chief of NHPC whereas the rules state very clearly that a vigilance report should take a maximum of three months.Delays in the vigilance reports, similarly, has been a majorfactor in the delays in appointing various directors in the oil companies. Since anonymous complaints usually surface at around the time that the PESB interviews are held, or soon after, the government had come out with a rule that complaints received six months prior to, or after, the PESB interview would not be examined. And, if they were, this would be done only after permission of the secretary of the concerned ministry and the head of the PSU authorised this. Yet, in the case of some of these directors, no permission of the petroleum secretary or the heads of BPCL or IOC has been sought.

Unless the process of PSU appointments is speeded up, it is difficult to see how they will be able to compete with the more light-footed private sector. In the oil sector it is difficult to imagine any of the private competitors, say Reliance which is emerging as a strong threat to the public sector oil companies, leaving such vital posts unfilled, or manned by people who are not even certain of their tenure.

Nor, inthe case of the navratna PSUs, is it clear why the PESB, the CVC or anyone in the government should be involved in this appointments process at all. After all, if they're free to run their units, they should be free to hire people as well. Of course, in this case, the government has got the ultimate trump card. It has still not cleared the names of the independent directors for these navratnas, which is what is required to set them free.