“And that brings us to the question many young Goans are already asking: what happens to the youth who are looking for jobs? This concern cannot be brushed aside. When senior posts remain occupied longer, movement throughout the hierarchy slows. Promotions are delayed. Vacancies take longer to open. Recruitment at the entry level — where young engineers are waiting — becomes unpredictable. Even if youth are not directly competing for the top posts, they are affected by the chain reaction caused by slower turnover at the top.
The problem does not lie in the amendment itself. It lies in the government’s ability to ensure timely promotions and prevent procedural delays from artificially extending senior officers’ tenure.”
The Goa government’s move to extend the retirement age to sixty two for Chief Engineers and senior officers in critical technical departments is more than a rule change. It touches the deeper issue of how a small state manages expertise, continuity and opportunity. The amendment is not unconditional. It applies only when there is no eligible officer ready for promotion, and once someone qualifies, the senior officer over sixty must retire immediately. On paper, this creates a balance between experience and upward mobility.
The reasoning behind the amendment is straightforward. Departments such as PWD, Water Resources, Drinking Water Supply and Electricity handle projects that span years. They depend heavily on institutional memory and technical judgment. When a senior officer retires halfway through a complex project, it can set work back by months. Goa’s tight pool of specialised engineers makes these transitions harder. The extension therefore offers a safeguard against abrupt leadership gaps that could freeze essential public infrastructure.
But this continuity has a cost if it is not handled carefully. Government systems thrive on renewal. Promotions bring fresh ideas. They test the readiness of the next line and prevent departments from slipping into predictable habits. The amendment tries to preserve this by ensuring that an extension ends the moment an eligible successor appears. The intent is fair, but the execution will determine its fate.
And that brings us to the question many young Goans are already asking: what happens to the youth who are looking for jobs? This concern cannot be brushed aside. When senior posts remain occupied longer, movement throughout the hierarchy slows. Promotions are delayed. Vacancies take longer to open. Recruitment at the entry level — where young engineers are waiting — becomes unpredictable. Even if youth are not directly competing for the top posts, they are affected by the chain reaction caused by slower turnover at the top.
The problem does not lie in the amendment itself. It lies in the government’s ability to ensure timely promotions and prevent procedural delays from artificially extending senior officers’ tenure. If files stagnate, or if departments fail to prepare successors in time, young job seekers bear the brunt. For a generation already dealing with limited opportunities in the public sector, even slight delays deepen frustration.
This is precisely why the state must treat succession planning as seriously as infrastructure planning. Training programs, exposure to major projects and regular assessments must be part of the system well before an officer reaches retirement age. If younger engineers are not groomed early, extensions become a crutch. If the government wants to protect youth aspirations, it must maintain a steady hiring cycle and avoid using extensions as a substitute for proper workforce planning.
There is also the question of performance. Extending service can only be justified if senior officers continue to deliver. Technical departments today rely on modern tools, digital workflows and evolving design standards. Experience matters, but experience must adapt. A higher retirement age should not become a shelter for inertia. The state must insist that officers who stay beyond sixty bring active, updated leadership, not merely seniority.
Still, it would be unfair to label the change either wholly harmful or unquestionably beneficial. It has the potential to support Goa through periods when expertise is scarce and projects cannot afford disruption. At the same time, it can disadvantage younger engineers if misused or left unregulated. The balance the rule promises must be protected through strict oversight, transparent promotions and consistent opportunities for new entrants.
This amendment will become a boon only if it strengthens Goa’s technical leadership while keeping doors open for youth who are waiting to enter the system. It becomes a bane if it strengthens the top but weakens everyone below it. Goa needs both seasoned engineers and rising talent. The rule recognises this balance. Now the system must live up to it.
ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important info. See Cookie Preferences.
