Politics cannot be taken out of administration nor does administration out of politics, for no one desire to take away the control and leave rulers a free hand to do whatever they wish. This would be to turn back the clock and throw away a most precious prize that masked has won through the years. Politics is defined as actions which have to do with the control of rulers. In other words, things which are done to determine the general policy of the government or to influence particular acts of particular officials or the selection of officials of are politics. They are acts which influence or alter the effective “will of the state”. They shift the direction of public policy. They government, that is, the formally organized and recognized group of persons who at a given time exercise effective power to compel universal service and conformity, and to conduct various community services. In these same terms, the things which these rulers do, that is, the work of government the development and enforcement of controls, the establishment and management of services – these all taken together are public administration. When we turn to examine the actual work of government, we encounter difficulties. As Willoughby has observed, discretion, the use of use of judgment, is the essential element in the employee, of policy. If any government employee any one of our “rulers”, has discretion, he not only has the power, but is by circumstances compelled to determine policy. What we have in administration is a continual process of decision-action-decision-action. It follows from this that government institution cannot be devised to coincide with any scheme of clear-cut division between policy and administration. In a government organized departmentally, with a hierarchy of executive and administrative officers and a tradition of discretion and coordination from the top down through order, instructions, conferences, appointments, fiscal decision, and discipline, it is evident that there is in general a decrease of discretion any action as one proceeds from the top to the bottom of the system. Discretion, the use of judgment, is the right to close within a constraining framework of necessity. The expansion of the range of judgment and choice is not a simple arithmetic progression. As a parochial Mather, officials on permanent tenure exercise a greater amount of discretion then their associates who are not on tenure, though they may be of the same rank in the administration. Cases are not uncommon in which a subordinate official on tenure will exercise greater policy determination functions then his superior who is not on tenure. The cases which are for the chief executive to handle may be distributed, if the load is high-delegation of powers is followed in such situations. Must of the actual discretion used in administration is at very bottom of the hierarchy, where public servants touch the public. In context of kinds of discretion, one important question could be, “is it possible to distinguish” between various kinds of discretion in public administration? In particular are there decisions which are sui generis “political” or “administrative” or “technical” or “important” or “unimportant” or “judicial” or “executive” or “legislative” or “constitutional”? This has been assumed by many authorities. It is, however, not possible to examine the individual acts of individual persons in normal discharge of their governmental work without discovering that there is no such internet difference in the nature, the purpose, and the character of discretion. The classification of an individual act under any one of the above stated heads will depend upon the existing institutional set-up and upon the prevalent pattern of values and interests dominant at a given time and place. The vaccination of school children may be technical, unimportant, administrative work, or it may be important and political. It may be brought under constitutional or legislative or judicial jurisdiction, or it may be left to executive or administrative discretion. In a popularly controlled government, a decision is political and not technical if at the time the effective and dominant groups of the community or their elected representatives and leaders desire to have influence in the making of that decision Whether an act is executive or legislative or judicial in character, is purely an institutional concept, and grow out of a practical division of work which happens to exist at a given time. It does not arise from the nature of the things done. Whether an act is “political” or “nonpolitical” is likewise not discoverable by an examination of the act itself, but only by an examination of that in relation to social psychology. In a popularly controlled government, a decision is political and not technical if at the time the effective and dominant groups of the community or their elected representatives and leaders desire to have influence in the making of that decision. John Locke and Montesquie we surrounded by the mechanism of control of arbitrary power which had developed with the decay of feudalism, before the growth of political parties, general education, and democracy. They therefore thought that the tripartite division of powers and the system of automatic internal checks and balances was a final philosophical truth. At least, it did seem to give them the civil liberty and freedom from arbitrary power which at the time mankind ardently desired. This freedom had been largely achieved when Woodrow Wilson and frank W. Goodnow examined democracy. They were surrounded by spoils politics and government in efficiency in an age of technological specialization. They therefore divides all government into politics and administration, assigning to certain organs of government the functions of politics, of policy control, and reserving for those policies. This theory is equally a product of time and desire. Theories and research provide bricks and straws from which new ideas develop to bring health and strength to the process of governance and the need for sustainability, accountability, transparency and more effective decisions with focus on fairness and objectivity. Where there is need for discretion it calls for highest standards of justice and fair play. Justice shshould not only be done, it should appear to have been done. Selection boards looking into merit and promotion of civil servants are expected to deliver effectively and honestly. More care is required in dealing with cases at the higher levels. Unfortunately, the government’s decision to increase discretionary powers of the central selection board (CSB) is a cause for concern, in violation of previous court rulings and against PTI’s own principles. The government just doubled of the marks needed to promote officers from their current grade. This violates all objective criteria of merit and promotion. Objectivity is must needed. The government must review this decision before it causes lasting damage. The government must come out and explain exactly what will be the implications of this policy of giving move discretionary powers to the CSB. How will this initiative promote merit and transparency? The writer is former Director National Institute of Public Administration (NIPA) Government of Pakistan, a political analyst, a public policy expert, and a published author