The proposed amendments to the Government of India’s All India Services deputation rules have stirred the hornets’ nest. The non-BJP ruled states have joined the chorus to oppose the proposed amendment.
It was West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee who first objected; followed by Rajasthan Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot who shot off a letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi to convey his disagreement.
Now almost all non-NDA ruled states have unanimously raised their voice against the single amendment that, they feel, will change the very nature and face of the All India Services (AIS).
The founding fathers of the Indian Constitution created AIS as a service that would serve both, the centre and the state governments. It was seen as a bridge between the centre and the states.
AIS was created with the purpose to promote greater national perspective by creating a pool of officers, whose services could be at the disposal of the various states through cadre allocations like Maharashtra cadre, Gujarat cadre, Punjab cadre and such officers work in their assigned cadres except for the period when their services were required for fixed periods of central deputations.
India was ruled by the princely states and the erstwhile British provinces like Bombay Presidency, Madras and Bengal lived together with different languages, cultures and even food habits.
However, under the federal structure, when all the states became part of the Indian Union, they were given the power and autonomy to frame their state laws and administer within a certain jurisdiction under the state’s list. The Constitution enshrined the concept of consent to the states with the formation of the AIS.
On 8 September 1949, the Constituent Assembly of India met to debate Article 282 (C), which subsequently became Article 312 in the Constitution of India. There was an extended debate on the issue of the power given to the Upper House of Parliament (Rajya Sabha), and giving the Lower House (Lok Sabha) no power concerning the formation of All India Services.
To maintain an all-India character of these services, it was prescribed that two-thirds of the persons recruited for a state should not be from within that state. This has ensured that the top bureaucracy and the police officers do not belong to respective states, giving the administrative system a fairer, impartial and broader character.
What are the proposed amendments?
“The Union Personnel Ministry has decided to amend existing service rules to ensure the availability of a sufficient number of IAS officers for Central deputation. The proposal which will give a greater say to the Union government came as various state/joint cadres were found to be not sponsoring an adequate number of Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officers as part of the Central deputation reserve even though the ministry had flagged the issue several times.
As a result, the number of officers available for Central deputation is not sufficient to meet the requirement at the Union Government,” the Personnel Ministry said in the proposal seeking changes in the IAS (cadre) Rules, 1954.
Seeking to change the rules, the Union Government proposed that each state government shall make eligible officers at various levels available for deputation to the Union Government.
The Central Deputation Reserve prescribed under existing regulations adjusted proportionately the number of officers available with the state concerned government vis-a-vis the total authorised strength of the state cadre at a given point of time.
The new rule proposes that the actual number of officers to be deputed to the Union Government shall be decided by it will be in consultation with the concerned state government.
In case of any disagreement, the matter shall be decided by the Union Government and the state government or state governments concerned shall give effect to the decision of the Union Government within a specified time.
Existing rules did not mention any time limit for deciding on such disagreement.
Both Mamata Banerjee and Ashok Gehlot were up in arms against the Prime Minister on the issue of the Centre’s proposal and said the rules were against the spirit of cooperative federalism and it is bound to make the services weaker.
Both Chief Ministers were of the view that the proposed amendment was going to affect the spirit of the cooperative federalism of the Indian constitution. This will violate constitutional jurisdiction prescribed for the Central and state governments and will reduce the spirit of working fearlessly and faithfully in the All India Services (AIS) officers posted in various states.
In his letter to the Prime Minister, Gehlot quoted the country’s first Home Minister Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel when on October 10, 1949, during a debate on All India Services in the Constituent Assembly, he argued said, “If you want an efficient All India Service, I would give an opportunity to the services to express themselves freely. If you are a service recipient, it will be your duty to allow your secretary, or chief secretary of a state, or other services under you to express their opinion without fear or favour. Without it, you will not have Akhand Bharat. A good All India Service would be one in which there is the freedom to speak your mind, in which there is a sense of security that you can stick to your word and where the rights and privileges are protected.”
Quoting the Ironman of India, Gehlot stressed that keeping the pious views of Sardar Patel the amendment is contrary to the basic spirit of the Constitution.
Gehlot added that after the amendments, the Union Government will be able to call officers on deputation without the consent of the state government, where the officer has been posted under the cadre allotment.
“With this amendment, the services conceptualized by Sardar Patel will weaken and the goals set by the constitution would be further weakened. These proposed amendments will also affect the prevailing relations between the centre and the state in the matter of postings of the officers. The proposed amendments will affect the state administration due to the lack of consent of the states. The state will also face a shortage of officers in the implementation of its plans and policies,” Gehlot wrote in his letter to the PM.
The trouble started when West Bengal was blamed by the home ministry for violating the “federal policy of alternating officers of the West Bengal cadre to go on Central deputation. Mamata Banerjee arbitrarily withheld “no objection” to inter-state cadre transfer of officers on the ground of their marriage, which is provided for in the AIS rules. Mamata interpreted rules in her selective way.
Deputation to the Centre is covered under Rule 6(i) of the IAS Cadre Rules which stipulate that “a cadre officer may, with the concurrence of the state government concerned and also the central government, be deputed to the services of the Central Government. Provided that under any disagreement, the Central Government shall decide on the matter."
But in recent times, West Bengal, and a few other states, refused to give “no objection” certificates to its cadre officers. This created a problem for the Central Government to fill up the vacancies.
In this tussle, the officers were found to be on receiving end. Some states are not willing to let their officers take up central deputation when going on a deputation to the centre is the right of an officer.
This has caused a lot of heartburn among officers willing to go.
There is a need for overhauling the AIS rules in consultation with, not only the states but in consultation with the associations of the IAS, IPS and IFS officers as well. If the Central Government persists in pushing through the proposed amendment, it would only lead to the destruction of the administrative architecture of the country.
