A proposal that raised questions on IAS control

The All India Services (AIS), like the IAS, Indian Police Service and Indian Forest Service, were established under our Constitution with noble and practical objectives. Members of the AIS, especially the IAS, were to hold leadership positions in the bureaucracy from the sub-district to the state and central levels. As PS Appu said, “[The] The idea was that the members appointed to the services would stand steadfastly by the Constitution and the law and would give clear and fearless advice to politicians…that they would play a vital role in holding together a country with great inequality and diversity. Another expectation was that these services …. would provide both central and state government officials with high quality field conditions and valuable experience in the actual functioning of governments at various levels….”

The exchange of officers between its allotted state cadre and the Center is a basic feature of the IAS. Direct recruits are allotted a state cadre (with a 2:1 outsider: insider ratio) and deputed to the center for a specific period, after which they are expected to return. Thus, at all times and at senior levels, the Center should have adequate officers representing the experience of different states. It maintains the pan-India character of the services, broadens their outlook and reduces narrow-mindedness. While computing the strength of the state cadre, a central deputation reserve of up to 40% is created. Every year, the Center sends a list of officers in different seniority bands to the states to be considered for deputation, and the Center selects from such ‘offer lists’.

Unfortunately, many states do not offer sufficient numbers for consideration. As a result, in the last few years, an unfortunate situation has arisen wherein the Central Ministries and Departments are facing acute shortage of IAS officers at the middle and senior level. Apparently this is the reason why the Center has written to the states proposing changes in the rules and seeking their answers.

The resolution urges each state to send a list of names to the Centre’s requirements, and in case of any disagreement, the matter will be decided by the Center and the state will have to implement that decision “within a specified time”. will have to do; Further, in the matter of any delay by the State, the authorities shall be relieved; Also, in the specific situation where the “public interest” requires officers, the state must effect the call within a specific time frame.

At first glance, none of this seems unreasonable. Then what are some states afraid of? How does this undermine the states’ political control over the bureaucracy? How does it go against the spirit of cooperative federalism and affect the administration of the states? Will it be in public interest to ‘provincialise’ the IAS and jeopardize its pan-India character? What do such states propose to solve this issue satisfactorily?

This apprehension stems from a lack of trust between governments and between individual officials. Recent episodes involving senior IAS and IPS officers caught in the throes of political battles have raised the fundamental issue of who actually controls the members of India’s high bureaucracy and thus controls the administrative machinery both at the central and state levels. Is.

The willingness of officers to move from their state to the Center on deputation is also an important factor. The problem is compounded by the tendency of many officials to lobby with political leaders to retain or obtain coveted positions. A central job seems lucrative mostly to the more ambitious, who are not in the good books of the state’s political leadership, or who have personal reasons to move to Delhi. Many others prefer to spend their careers in their home state. Is this desirable?

The Center should play a more motivating role to solve this problem. Making strict rules and adopting a high-level approach may not help much. All states should appreciate that it is in their interest to have officers working at the Centre.

So, first of all, the cadre and career planning should be scientific and for the future, with more recruitment if need be. Second, every officer should be motivated to work at the center, and this should be made clear during their induction training. Third, in an annual joint exercise between the states and the Centre, the list of those to be deputed should be finalised. Since the selection for senior positions is done by chief ministers at the state level, or by the concerned minister at the Center and the prime minister, the latter should not be left with a complete list of officials deemed ‘inconvenient’ or ‘detachable’. states.

IAS unions, who do very little valuable work, may perhaps volunteer to help the government(s) in this exercise. Once the mutually agreed list is finalised, it should be the responsibility of the Center to find suitable postings for all of them ‘within a specified time’. The practice of returning officers to their states prematurely should be avoided.

What is needed is the cooperation of all the stakeholders. The proposed rule change, apparently well done, would be successful if the Center could convince the states as well as IAS officers about the merits of the move. Otherwise, the current conflict will continue, petty issues will go out of proportion and individual executives will suffer.

Amitabh Bhattacharya is a former Indian Administrative Service officer who has also worked in the private sector and with the United Nations Development Program