Proposals to recruit staff for approximately 100,000 temporary posts in grades 16 to 20 across various government offices have been left in limbo. Ministries and divisions find themselves unable to fill these crucial third- and fourth-class positions due to sudden revisions in the outsourcing policy. Consequently, despite a persistent high demand for workforce, offices cannot hire new personnel, leaving members of the general public deprived of essential administrative services and creating a bottleneck in public sector operations.
Until recently, government bodies customarily recruited third- and fourth-class employees through private outsourcing agencies or specialized companies. However, under the newly revised policy framework, this traditional recruitment channel through private entities has been effectively barred. Ministries, divisions, and subordinate government offices are now expected to either recruit staff directly or channel their hiring through the Infrastructure Investment Facilitation Company (IIFC), a specialized organization formally approved by the Finance Division.
The administrative gridlock stems directly from the revision of the Service Procurement through Outsourcing Process Policy, which was officially issued by the Ministry of Finance on 21 September. While the revised policy envisions enabling government offices to procure services directly from individuals rather than engaging private corporate entities, practical implementation has hit a massive roadblock. Current public procurement laws and associated rules lack any specific provisions permitting the direct procurement of such services from individuals.
Furthermore, the existing Public Procurement Rules (PPR) fail to outline the proper mechanisms or legal procedures through which ministries can directly hire temporary staff for grades 16 to 20. This glaring legislative gap has given rise to profound legal complications, leaving administrative implementers hesitant and vulnerable to procedural violations. Without explicit regulatory backing, the execution of the revised policy has come to a grinding halt across multiple government directorates and departments.
Experts and administrative analysts emphasize that higher authorities and the Ministry of Finance must intervene promptly to untangle these legal knots. Resolving the ambiguity within the procurement framework through urgent amendments or supplementary guidelines is vital. Failure to do so will not only prolong the suffering of citizens seeking routine government services but also delay critical employment opportunities for thousands of job seekers dependent on these public sector positions.
