Observations on Recruitment Cases

Recruiting new talents and injecting new blood into the Civil Service is vital in sustaining a stable and robust workforce to achieve the aim of effective and efficient delivery of public service with high quality. B/Ds need to conduct regular recruitment exercises to meet their manpower requirements and service needs. The process of selection is rigorous and competition keen. The Commission supports the conduct of recruitment based on merit and fair competition so as to select the best-suited candidates for the civil service jobs. Apart from ensuring the proper conduct of the recruitment process, we also attach importance to administrative efficiency in order that the Government can compete with the private sector for talents and good candidates.

With years of accumulated experience and the aid of clear guidelines, recruitment exercises have been conducted smoothly in accordance with Civil Service recruitment policy. The rules governing the proper conduct of exercises are laid down in the Guidebook. To ensure compliance and facilitate B/Ds in preparing their submissions to the Commission, we invited CSB to consider devising a template with a checklist on all necessary information to be provided. As reported in our last Annual Report, CSB has responded positively and the template was promulgated for use by B/Ds in February 2021. The template was subsequently incorporated into the Guidebook for ready reference by all. The Commission is pleased to note the mutual benefits it has brought to B/Ds and the Commission Secretariat in our respective area of work. We are gratified to see improved efficiency and the shortened time taken in completing recruitment exercises. This is an extraordinary achievement when all out efforts had to be taken across B/Ds to fight COVID-19 which had mutated further in the past year. While some exercises were found to be behind schedule, recruitment exercises had, by and large, proceeded as planned and none aborted.

Apart from noting B/Ds’ general compliance with the rules and procedures, the Commission is also pleased to see the marked improvement in the quality of the recruitment board reports. The Commission was particularly impressed by three recruitment exercises among the many advised in the past year. The boards’ assessment on the performance of each individual candidate during the selection interview was well-written and cogent. The inclusion of a brief background of the candidate with remarks on why the board considered the candidate should be recommended had greatly facilitated the Commission’s scrutiny. It obviated the need for the Commission to seek clarification and has helped to expedite the recruitment process such that offers for appointment could be made at the earliest time. The Commission believes that good work done should be given due recognition and to this end, we have conveyed our compliment to the concerned recruitment boards.

To ensure that only the most suitable candidates are appointed to the Civil Service, the foremost task of a recruitment board is to determine a set of key qualities for evaluating the suitability of the applicants. The formulated criteria for assessment should also be compatible with the job requirements. While a marking scheme is normally devised for selection, the Commission has noted in some cases that no relative weighting was accorded to the items under assessment. We are concerned that a candidate with an unacceptably low score in a key aspect might pass the selection with an overall pass score. We have therefore advised the department concerned to review the assessment criteria and set appropriate weightings for each criterion so that only those passing all and including the key aspects are selected and offered appointment. We are pleased to see our advice acted on in the recruitment exercise conducted by the department last year.

As civil service jobs generally offer a life-long career after an initial observation period, it is crucial to ensure that only candidates who have met the entry requirements and possessed the required calibre are appointed. It is vital therefore for a recruiting department to set out clearly and accurately the most up-to-date entry requirement of the post in the advertisements and/or vacancy circulars. During the year, the Commission noted that a department had used an outdated set of entry requirements in the advertisement/vacancy circular of a recruitment exercise. Fortunately, it had not adversely affected the recruitment work. In the end, the recommended candidates for appointment were all able to meet the entry requirements which had been updated in time. In another recruitment exercise, the department had erroneously included ten unqualified candidates but screened out one qualified candidate in its initial vetting process. The mistakes were rectified upon the Commission’s enquiry. Although no irreparable consequences had been caused by the inadvertence in these two exercises, the Commission considered that the oversight could be avoided if the subject officers had been more vigilant in ensuring accuracy of information in the recruitment process. To avoid recurrence of such problems, the Commission has advised the concerned departments to put in place a more robust checking mechanism.

In two other recruitment submissions examined last year, the Commission had found one candidate in each of the two recruitment exercises being identified as suitable for appointment but not given an offer. As explained by the recruiting departments, the two candidates were found to have failed the stipulated entry requirements upon further verification of their qualifications after the selection interviews. On detailed examination, the Commission observed that both candidates had in fact provided their documentary proof before attending the selection interviews. The departments should have verified their eligibility on the spot and aborted the interviews. The nugatory administrative work incurred aside, interviewing unqualified candidates would cause confusion and affect the reliability of the recruitment results. The Commission has reminded the two departments to exercise extra care in vetting the qualifications of candidates in future exercises.

In accordance with the established practice, a recruitment board may draw up a waiting list for future appointment if the number of suitable candidates exceeds that of vacancies immediately available. The length of the waiting list should take into account factors such as the number of anticipated vacancies to arise and past decline rates as a reference. A waiting list is normally valid for one year from the date when the recommendations of the recruitment board report are approved or until the commencement of the next recruitment exercise, whichever is the earlier. The relevant AA may approve an extension of the validity period of a waiting list prior to its expiry, provided that a fresh round of recruitment exercise has not commenced.

In examining the recommendations of a recruitment board, the Commission noted with concern that the board had recommended an excessively long waiting list with about 150 candidates waitlisted for filling some 20 upcoming vacancies. While the validity period of a waiting list may be extended, the Commission believes that maintaining a waiting list for a prolonged period is not conducive for the department in tapping the best available talents for recruitment to the Civil Service. Potential candidates who will become qualified for the post after the recruitment exercise may be deprived the chance to apply for the job due to the prolonged waiting list. The Commission has reminded the department to critically assess the need of maintaining a long waiting list and in considering an extension of its validity in conducting future recruitment exercises.