Civil Service Appointments

Civil servants, who are the backbone of the HKSAR Government, are duty-bound to observe and implement the principle of “One Country, Two Systems”, safeguard national security as well as uphold the Basic Law and the rule of law. Maintaining a workforce of civil servants, who are loyal to the Government, dedicated to their duties, committed to serving the community and at the same time objective and impartial in the discharge of duties, is of vital importance to the effective governance of the Government. In view of the foregoing, civil service appointment has to be highly selective to ensure that only the most suitable and meritorious are recruited and appointed into the Civil Service.

In 2025, the Commission considered and tendered advice on 1 097 case-specific submissions with breakdown below –

Apart from tendering advice and observations on case-specific submissions, the Commission also works closely with CSB to provide views on new appointment policies, improve and streamline appointment procedures as well as propose subjects for review, where appropriate, for a better and more efficient appointment system. An overall account of the Commission’s work is detailed in this Chapter.

Recruitment to the Civil Service is undertaken by CSB and individual B/Ds which may take the form of an open recruitment or in-service appointment or both. Where submissions are required to be made to the Commission⁶, we need to be satisfied that objective selection standards and proper procedures are adopted in the process. B/Ds are required to consult the Commission in advance on the introduction of any new shortlisting criteria in a recruitment exercise to ensure that they are appropriate and fair. We also advise B/Ds on measures to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the recruitment process so that offers can be made to successful candidates as early as possible.

In 2025, the Commission advised on 119 recruitment submissions involving the filling of 1 254 posts, of which 1 218 posts (in 114 submissions) were through open recruitment and 36 posts (in five submissions) by in-service appointment. A statistical breakdown of these appointments is provided at Appendix IV. The number of recruitment submissions advised by the Commission in the past five years is shown below –

Requiring an appointee to undergo a probationary/trial period serves manifold purposes, including –

To uphold the proper administration of the probation/trial system, HoDs/Heads of Grade (HoGs) have the overall responsibility of overseeing the management of officers on probation/trial.

To maintain a high quality Civil Service, it is vital for HoDs/HoGs to adopt stringent suitability standards in assessing the performance and conduct of officers on probation/trial to ensure that only those who are suitable in all respects are allowed to pass the probation/trial bar for continued appointment. According to the guidelines promulgated by CSB and as provided for under Civil Service Regulations (CSRs), termination of an officer’s probationary/trial service is not a punishment. If at any time during the probationary/trial period, an officer on probation/trial is found to have failed to measure up to the required standards of performance/conduct and displayed little progress despite having been given guidance and advice by their supervising officers and/or GMs, the HoD/HoG concerned should take early and resolute action to terminate his service under CSR 186/200 without the need to wait until the end of the probationary/trial period or recourse to disciplinary proceedings.

While fair opportunities should be given to new appointees to pursue a long-term career in the Government, extension of probationary/trial period should not be used as a substitute for termination of service or solely for the purpose of giving an appointee more time to prove his suitability. It is only in very exceptional circumstances where the officer, though not yet fully meeting the suitability standards, has shown positive and strong indication to be able to achieve the standards within the extension period that an extension of his probationary/trial period should be granted.

In 2025, the Commission advised on a total of 38 submissions requiring the termination of probationary/trial service of the officers concerned. Most of these submissions were related to unsatisfactory performance and/or conduct.

There were 110 other submissions involving extension of probationary/trial service in the year. Most of these extensions were needed to allow time for the officers concerned to demonstrate their suitability for permanent appointment/passage of trial bar on grounds of a temporary setback in performance, minor lapses in conduct, or pending the acquisition of requisite qualifications prescribed for continued appointment. A statistical breakdown of the submissions related to termination/extension of probationary/trial service and a comparison with those in the past four years are provided at Appendix V. Some observations made by the Commission on these submissions are provided in Chapter 3.

The role of the Commission in advising the Government on promotions⁷ in the Civil Service is to ensure that only the most suitable and meritorious officers are selected to undertake the higher rank responsibilities through a fair and equitable promotion system. In examining promotion submissions from B/Ds, the Commission will need to be satisfied that proper procedures have been followed and that the fair claims of all eligible officers have been considered on an equal basis, regardless of their terms of appointment, against the objective criteria of ability, experience, performance, character and prescribed qualifications, if any. The Commission also makes observations on the conduct of promotion exercises and matters relating to performance management with a view to bringing about improvements as well as enhancing the efficiency and quality of the overall civil service promotion system as a whole.

In 2025, the Commission advised on 706 promotion submissions involving the recommendations of 9 212 officers for promotion or acting appointment. The number of promotion submissions advised by the Commission in the past five years is shown below –

Promotions have to be earned on the basis of merits, and hence are competitive. The recommendations of a promotion board have to stand up to scrutiny and the relevant board has to answer the queries raised by the Commission and provide justifications and objective evidence to support them. A numerical breakdown of these submissions and a comparison with those in the past four years are provided at Appendix VI. Some specific observations made by the Commission on these submissions are provided in Chapter 4.

Pursuant to the Government’s policy decision announced in January 2015 to extend the service of civil servants, an adjusted mechanism for further employment beyond retirement age for a longer duration than final extension of service⁸ (hereafter referred to as “FE”) was fully implemented from June 2017 after consulting the Commission.

Under the FE scheme, eligible officers may be considered for FE through a selection process, which has been institutionalised by making reference to the modus operandi of promotion and recruitment boards. The Commission’s advice is required for FE if the posts concerned are under our purview. In 2025, the Commission considered 22 FE submissions and supported the extension of service of 64 officers. A breakdown of the number of submissions involving extension of service or re-employment after retirement advised by the Commission in 2025 and a comparison with those in the past four years are provided at Appendix VII.

In 2025, the Commission advised on 54 other appointment submissions. They cover cases of non-renewal/termination or extension of agreement; secondment⁹; retirement in the public interest under s.12 of the PS(A)O; review of acting appointment and updating of Guide to Appointment (G/A)¹⁰. A statistical breakdown of these submissions and a comparison with those in the past four years are provided at Appendix VIII.

Retirement in the public interest under s.12 of the PS(A)O is not a form of disciplinary action or punishment but pursued as an administrative measure in the public interest on the grounds of –

An officer who is required to retire in the public interest may be granted retirement benefits. In the case of a pensionable officer, a deferred pension may be granted when he reaches his statutory retirement age. In the case of an officer under the CSPF Scheme, on top of the accrued benefits attributable to mandatory contributions, which will not be affected, the accrued benefits attributable to the Government’s Voluntary Contributions, if applicable, will also be payable in accordance with the rules of the relevant scheme.

As an initiative to strengthen the management of persistent sub-standard performers and expedite the process for taking the necessary actions, CSB, having consulted the Commission and collected views from the management and staff sides, promulgated the streamlined mechanism in September 2023.

In 2025, the Commission was consulted on two cases under s.12 of the PS(A)O on the ground of persistent sub-standard performance out of a total of 18 being processed by the Government in the same year¹¹. The Commission had tendered its advice supporting the retirement of the officers of the two cases concerned in the public interest. These two officers were ordered to retire in May and August 2025 respectively. For the remaining 16 cases, two officers had improved their performance during the observation period and the s.12 cases were suspended; and 14 officers remained under close observation or their s.12 cases were being processed by the Government as at the end of 2025.

With the streamlined mechanism smoothly implemented, it is imperative for the Government to sustain its efforts in this regard. Apart from CSB’s commitment to collaborating closely with the departmental managements to enhance the monitoring of potential and on-going cases of s.12 action, the Commission will continue to draw B/Ds’ attention to potential s.12 cases during the processing of promotion submissions. We are confident that our concerted efforts will help uphold the high standards of the Civil Service and ensure that cases involving persistent sub-standard performers are addressed appropriately and effectively.

The Commission appreciates the Administration’s dedication to enhancing the civil service management system, as well as its on-going efforts to strengthen governance efficacy. We are pleased to note the announcement in the CE’s 2025 Policy Address for the establishment of a Heads of Department Accountability System (the System) and the Government’s contemplation to expand the Commission’s current role with a view to enabling it to conduct the independent investigation work under Tier II of the System as and when required. To this end, we understand that CSB has been working in full steam on the making of subsidiary legislation under the PSCO to provide the Commission with the new investigative function to undertake Tier II investigation of the System. We look forward to working closely with CSB on the preparatory work for implementing the System.

One of the Commission’s priority tasks is to collaborate with the Administration to strengthen the performance management system in the Civil Service, aiming to better realise civil servants’ performance and development potential. Refinements and improvements to the performance management system are a continuous process. We are glad to note that the CE’s 2025 Policy Address put forward the establishment of a more rigorous performance appraisal system for civil servants that seeks to more effectively reflect and differentiate the performance levels of staff. We understand that CSB has commenced the study on strengthening the civil service performance appraisal system with a view to more effectively distinguishing the staff’s performance level. The Commission is in full support of this initiative, and stands ready to contribute its comments and advice as required.