In News

The Central Government has proposed four amendments to Rule 6(1) of the IAS (Cadre) Rules, 1954 dealing with deputation in December.

Background

• It was Sardar Patel who had championed the creation of the IAS and the IPS as “All India Services” (AIS) whose members would be recruited and appointed by the Centre and allotted to various States, and who could serve both under the State and the Centre.
• He considered the AIS essential to knit the administrative framework of a vast and diverse country into an integrated whole and to provide a connecting link between implementation at the field level and policymaking at the top.
• The existing Rule 6(1) states that a cadre officer may be deputed to the Central Government (or to another State or a PSU) only with the concurrence of the State Government concerned. However, it has a proviso which states that in case of any disagreement, the matter shall be decided by the Central Government.
• The DoPT is the cadre controlling authority of IAS officers.

Proposed Changes

• the State government delays posting a State cadre officer to the Centre and does not give effect to the Central government’s decision within the specified time, “the officer shall stand relieved from cadre from the date as may be specified by the Central government.” Presently, officers have to get a no-objection clearance from the State government for Central deputation.
• The Centre will decide the actual number of officers to be deputed to the Central government in consultation with the State and the latter should make eligible the names of such officers. According to existing norms, States have to depute the All India Services (AIS) officers, including the Indian Police Service (IPS) officers, to the Central government offices and at any point it cannot be more than 40% of the total cadre strength.
• In case of any disagreement between the Centre and the State, the matter shall be decided by the Central government and the State shall give effect to the decision of the Centre “within a specified time.”
• In specific situation where services of cadre officers are required by the Central government in “public interest” the State shall give effect to its decisions within a specified time.

Concerns with the amendment

• A new proviso making it mandatory for the State government to provide a certain fixed number of IAS officers for central deputation every year.
• This more or less compels a State government to offer IAS officers for central deputation even when these officers themselves may not wish to go on central deputation.
• State government to release such officers whose services may be sought by the Central Government in specific situations.
• Based on experiences of the recent past, State governments have a justified apprehension that this proviso may be misused for political considerations.
• If States begin to doubt the loyalty of IAS officers, they are likely to reduce the number of IAS cadre posts and also their annual intake of IAS officers. They may prefer officers of the State Civil Services to handle as many posts as possible.
• In course of time, the IAS will lose its sheen

Way Forward

• The Centre would have no moral authority to govern unless it displays a sense of constitutional morality, particularly a sense of justice and fairness towards the States”.
• In S.R. Bommai vs Union of India (1994), the Supreme Court held that “States have an independent constitutional existence and they have as important a role to play in the political, social, educational and cultural life of the people as the Union. They are neither satellites nor agents of the Centre”.
• In a federal setup, it is inevitable that differences and disputes would arise between the Centre and the States. But all such quarrels should be resolved in the spirit of cooperative federalism and keeping the larger national interest in mind.