At a time when Kashmir is grappling with a severe water crisis, the government's decision to appoint a controversial and short-term officer as Chief Engineer of the Public Health Engineering (PHE) Department has sparked public outrage and raised serious questions about administrative priorities.
According to the details available with KPS the government’s move amid severe water crisis in Kashmir to appoint an officer—Taj Mohammad—who is due to retire in just four months, has come under widespread criticism.
Sources revealed that Taj Mohammad, previously posted in Jammu, was brought to Kashmir to head the PHE Department despite his nearing retirement.
Civil society members, water management experts, and local residents have strongly objected to this decision, arguing that the region requires a dynamic, long-term planner to navigate the deepening water crisis—not a stopgap arrangement.
“It defies logic,” said a senior official who wished to remain anonymous. “We need strong, visionary leadership in the department, not a symbolic figure whose tenure will end before any meaningful strategy can be implemented.”
“Most water supply schemes in Kashmir are not functioning optimally or are running only due to the personal commitment of local staff and community support. The deteriorating infrastructure and poor management have only worsened the situation, with hundreds of localities facing daily water shortages,” sources claimed.
Adding to the controversy, allegations of corruption have surfaced in the Handwara division under the AMRUT (Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation) scheme. A single-tender approval for a major contract has sparked accusations of favoritism and bribery.
The local contractors' association has condemned the move, terming it “blatant corruption” and demanding a fair and transparent bidding process.
Sources further alleged attempts are being made to push through the single-tender contract, bypassing established procurement norms. This has not only raised legal concerns but also triggered public resentment over the misuse of government funds.
Many are now questioning the motive behind the recent appointment. “Why appoint someone with such a short tenure to a post that is vital to public welfare?” asked a senior member of a local NGO. “Is this appointment meant to serve vested interests rather than the people’s needs?”
“The situation demands immediate attention. The government must revisit its decision and consider appointing officer capable of long-term planning and effective crisis management. Public confidence in governance and transparency is at stake—especially when access to something as basic as water hangs in the balance,” said a resident.
Comments are closed.