wrong diagnosis, wrong remedy

Proposed amendment to Rule 6(1) of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) (Cadre) Rules, 1954, which empowers the Central Government to unilaterally order central deputation of IAS officers without the consent of the State Governments or officers. concerned, has provoked controversy. The Center has justified them on the ground that states are not meeting their Central Deputation Reserve (CDR) obligations, due to which the Center is facing acute shortage of mid-level IAS officers, especially deputy secretaries and directors.

It is true that some states like Tamil Nadu (till a few years back) and West Bengal were adamant and would not even forward the names of IAS officers aspiring for central deputation. But the fact that not all states, including those ruled by the BJP, are meeting CDR obligations shows that their reluctance to forward names to the Center is not the real problem. We believe that there are simpler, more effective and less controversial solutions to the reduction than the proposed amendments. In fact, once the root causes of the deficiency are identified, the solutions suggest themselves.

due to lack

The first reason for the shortfall was the drastic reduction in the annual recruitment of IAS officers after 1991 (from 140-160 to just 50-80) under the misguided belief that economic liberalization would reduce the role of the government. It did not happen. It took almost 20 years for the Center to rectify this mistake and restore the annual recruitment before 1991. The shortfall of IAS officers at the all India level as on January 1, 2021 was 23%. The number of IAS officers to be recruited annually should be increased to around 200 for a few years as a short-term measure.

The second reason is the lack of “cadre review”. It is an exercise jointly organized by the Center and the states to designate certain strategic posts in the states as “cadre posts” and earmark them exclusively for IAS officers. In Tamil Nadu, it is unfair to designate posts like Disciplinary Proceedings Commissioner, Archaeological Commissioner and Museum Commissioner as cadre posts. A proper cadre review across all states would free many IAS officers from non-strategic positions and reduce the shortfall. At the Centre, there is a strong case for reducing bloated central ministries dealing with subjects in the State List and the Concurrent List, thereby reducing the demand for IAS officers and the CDR obligations of states.

The third reason is the thoughtless discontinuation of direct recruitment of officers in the Central Secretariat Service Group ‘B’ since the year 2000 and the undue delay in the regular promotion of officers from the ranks in the Central Secretariat due to protracted litigation since 2011. These officers used to occupy a large proportion of the Deputy Secretary/Director level posts in the Central Secretariat.

The fourth reason is the Center not fully utilizing the services of officers appointed to the IAS by promotion or selection from the State Civil Services. This large pool of around 2,250 officers, usually in the age group of 35-55 years, who have immense field experience, are tied to the state. It should be made mandatory for these officers to serve on Central deputation as Deputy Secretaries/Directors for at least two years immediately after their appointment to the IAS and their training at Mussoorie. Their next promotion to their State cadre should be subject to completion of this mandatory period of Central deputation. Relaxation can be given to officers above 50 years of age at the time of appointment. With this, the problem of shortage of officers of the level of Deputy Secretary / Director in the Center can be overcome in a jiffy.

The fifth reason is the many administrative constraints for central deputation by the Center itself in the form of highly restrictive conditions, perverse incentives, annual expiry of offer lists, long debarment periods, mandatory cooling-off periods, etc. It is unwise to expect direct recruited IAS officers to have at least two years of service as Deputy Secretaries/Directors between nine and 16 years of service to be empaneled as Joint Secretaries at the Center as this is precisely the stage when They are working in good job material, power, prestige and positions. Therefore, a large number of them do not go on central deputation and fail to be enlisted as joint secretaries, which automatically removes them from the future panel as additional secretaries and secretaries.

proposed solution

We suggest that it should be made mandatory for the direct recruited IAS officers to have at least three years of service on central deputation between nine and 25 years of service. Their promotion (usually after 25 years) to the grade of Principal Secretary in their State cadre should be subject to completion of this mandatory period of Central deputation. This comprehensive window will enable IAS officers to opt for central deputation at their convenience and the Center will also be assured of a steady, adequate supply of deputations.

The process of empanelment of IAS officers for the posts of Joint Secretary, Additional Secretary and Secretary (or their equivalent) at the Center is highly condemnable as it is opaque and arbitrary. The Center should directly select its Joint Secretaries, Additional Secretaries and Secretaries “on offer” from amongst IAS officers, who are serving in equivalent grades in the State Governments, through a process of selection – just like it does for Deputy Secretaries/Directors. chooses to. This will provide a larger, better talent pool for the Center and enable officers to utilize the experience gained in the State at various levels in the service of the Centre.

Therefore, we are of the view that the proposed amendment is a case of wrongly diagnosing malaise and applying a wrong remedy which has serious side effects. It is to be noted that even if the proposed amendments are implemented, states can still block central deputation by giving adverse performance appraisals or by imposing false disciplinary and vigilance cases against officers. This dystopian scenario actually played out in Tamil Nadu a few years back, with “he is a below average officer” being the favorite counter-remark.

Persuasion succeeds where force fails. The reduction in CDR obligations is not a problem that the Cabinet Secretary cannot solve by having a constructive dialogue with all the Chief Secretaries, or the Prime Minister cannot solve by meeting with all the Chief Ministers. The Inter-State Council constituted under Article 263 of the Constitution is the body specifically to deal with such Centre-State situations before things get out of hand.

It is worth recalling that in 1947, India lost almost 60% of its Indian Civil Service officers – British and Muslims – when the country was beset with far greater challenges than it is today. Sardar Patel showed great foresight and within a few years worked with the provinces (as he was then called) and made up for the shortfall by working against them. The sanctity of the principle of cooperative federalism and the interests of national unity and administrative efficiency are no less demanding.

Of. Ashok Vardhan Shetty is a former IAS officer of Tamil Nadu cadre and V. Ramani is a former IAS officer of Maharashtra cadre.