Dr Alamdar Hussain Malik
For decades, Pakistan has relied on a single centralized competitive examination as the primary gateway to its higher civil services. Conceived during the colonial administrative framework, the system was originally meant to produce a small group of generalist officers who would maintain law and order and manage routine revenue administration. At that time the state was limited in scope, technology was minimal, and governance required administrative supervision more than technical expertise. However, the responsibilities of a modern welfare and regulatory state are entirely different. Today the government manages economic planning, international trade, taxation systems, digital regulation, public health, climate policy, food security, energy markets, and financial oversight. Expecting one general examination to identify suitable officers for all these specialized functions is no longer realistic. What once worked for a simple administrative state now struggles to serve a complex modern nation.
Read also: Tit for tat in politics: Lethal for Pakistan’s economy
Every year more than 20,000 candidates appear in the competitive examination. Their educational backgrounds are vastly diverse — medicine, engineering, economics, agriculture, veterinary sciences, English literature, Islamiat, Urdu, law, and accountancy. After months of preparation and a long selection process, only around 300 candidates succeed. Yet the real problem begins after success: allocation. On the basis of overall merit ranking, these candidates are placed into groups such as the Police Service, Foreign Service, Audit and Accounts, District Management, and Secretariat Service — regardless of whether their academic qualifications match the technical requirements of those services.
A medical graduate may be posted to foreign diplomacy. An engineer may enter district administration. A literature graduate may handle national financial audits. An agriculture or veterinary specialist may be posted to taxation, while an accounts professional may be placed in general administration. This mismatch between academic specialization and professional responsibility has quietly become one of the most serious structural weaknesses of Pakistan’s governance system.
Modern governance is no longer generalist governance. The state today manages complex domains: international trade negotiations, digital taxation, public finance, counter-terrorism, health systems, climate change, food security, infrastructure development, and technological regulation. Each of these areas demands technical knowledge. Administration alone is not enough; expertise is essential.
When an officer spends the first ten to fifteen years of service merely trying to understand the technical nature of the department, institutional efficiency naturally suffers.
Decision-making becomes slow, risk-averse, and heavily dependent on consultants. Files move, but problems remain unresolved. Policies are written, but implementation fails. The state then appears weak — not because officers lack intelligence, but because they lack relevant professional training.
This misallocation also wastes national educational investment. Pakistan spends enormous resources producing doctors, engineers, accountants, and scientists. Yet many of them, after entering civil services, never again use their professional knowledge. The country faces shortage of specialists in hospitals, industries, research, and regulatory bodies, while highly trained professionals sit in offices performing unrelated administrative duties. The nation loses twice: the department loses technical competence, and the profession loses trained manpower.
Furthermore, organisational failure often blamed on corruption or inefficiency is actually rooted in structural design. Institutions cannot perform better than the expertise they contain. A financial regulatory body requires financial experts. A diplomatic service requires international relations specialists and economists. Police leadership requires criminology, psychology, and security studies. Public health administration requires medical and epidemiological knowledge. When leadership lacks subject knowledge, policy decisions rely on guesswork rather than analysis.
The solution therefore is clear: each occupational group should have its own separate, specialized examination and recruitment process.
Candidates should apply directly to the service they intend to join. The Police Service should recruit candidates trained in criminology, law, psychology, and security studies. The Foreign Service should recruit graduates of international relations, economics, languages, and diplomacy. Audit and Accounts should recruit accounting and finance professionals. Administrative and secretariat services should recruit candidates educated in public administration, management, and governance.
Nature itself offers a simple illustration — birds of the same feathers fly together. In every organized system, similarity of training and purpose produces coordination and effectiveness. When professionals of similar academic background and aptitude work within the same service, they understand the technical language of their institution, share a common professional outlook, and solve problems more efficiently. Governance, like any complex organization, functions best when expertise aligns with responsibility.
Such a reform would immediately improve institutional performance.
An officer entering service with appropriate academic preparation would be in a position to understand departmental work from the very first day. Instead of spending years learning the basics, the officer could focus on policy improvement, innovation, and service delivery. Training academies would refine skills rather than compensate for knowledge gaps. Government organisations would begin functioning as professional institutions rather than learning centres.
This approach does not abolish merit; it strengthens merit. Merit is not merely scoring high in general papers. True merit is the alignment of ability, education, and responsibility. A person best suited for diplomacy should serve in diplomacy. A financial expert should manage national accounts. A technically trained officer should manage technical departments. The right placement converts intelligence into productivity.
Another benefit would be improved motivation. Officers serving in fields aligned with their education and interest demonstrate higher commitment, professional pride, and accountability. They see their service not merely as employment but as a career of expertise. Consequently, decision-making becomes confident and evidence-based rather than cautious and procedural.
Pakistan today faces economic pressures, administrative inefficiencies, and weak service delivery. Much discussion focuses on accountability, training, and structural reorganization, yet the most fundamental issue — recruitment design — remains ignored. If selection itself is misaligned, no amount of training courses, seminars, or monitoring mechanisms can fully correct the institutional weakness. Reform must begin at the point of entry.
The era when a single examination could produce every type of public servant has ended. A modern state requires specialized recruitment, professional competence, and purposeful allocation. Separate examinations for each occupational group will ensure that candidates possessing compatible education and aptitude enter the appropriate service and are ready to contribute from their first day in office. Such officers will not spend years learning what they should already know; they will spend those years solving problems the nation urgently needs resolved. Without aligning expertise with responsibility, administrative reform will remain incomplete and governance performance will continue to lag.
At the heart of governance lies a simple principle: effective government begins when the right person is appointed to the right job — and is capable of delivering from the very first day in service.
