With the Centre seeking greater control over deputation of All India Services, a fresh set of controversy between the Centre and states appears imminent. Ever since the institution of IAS (Cadre) Rules 1954 and inclusion of Rule 6 (1) in 1969, the Central deputation of AIS officers has been made through an understanding between the Centre and state governments, with occasional hiccups propping up at several instances. The Centre, through its Department of Personnel and Training, conveyed to the states on December 20 last year that the number of officers deputed to the Central government was far below the requirements. The department proposed four amendments to the Rule 6 (1) of which two have come under heavy criticism from some state governments. Deputation of AIS officers is essentially a consultative process involving the Centre, state governments and officers who are to be deputed. Every year, states present an offer list to the Centre, which includes the names of all the officers who are willing to be deputed to Central roles. The Centre then picks up names from the list and states facilitate the process of deputation. This process underscores three basic things — respect for officers' choice, autonomous and unbiased action on part of the states, and a kind of flexible constraint for the Centre. One of the amendments proposed by the Department of Training and Personnel places a mandate on the state governments to discharge a fixed number of AIS officers for Central services. This, in the first place, may go against the respectability of the officers' choice. The consultation here is replaced by a mandate. What if the mandated number of officers don't express their willingness for Central services? Will some among them be forced against their will? Secondly, it imposes a sense of command of the Centre over the states which goes against the grain of healthy federalism. A sense of mutual understanding must be inherent in any consultative process. And mutual understanding and cooperation cannot remain firm if there is a relation of imposer and imposed between two stakeholders. It must however be made clear here that the Centre has proposed to set the number of officers to be deputed by the states consultatively according to the strength of their cadre. This still leaves a lot of scope for rift between the Centre and the states, which may affect the polity and governance of both the Centre and the states and weaken the established structure of AIS services. The second point of contention is another amendment that empowers the Centre to demand the deputation of certain officers in 'specific situations'. This could have far-reaching implications for the state governments. There have been instances in the past when following the rifts between the Centre and certain states, deputation of state officers was sought by the Centre, and declined by the states. The proposed amendment is prone to misuse in the cases of Centre-state rift. The lack of officers at the disposal of the Centre is indeed a cause of concern and needs to be fixed sooner. One wonders what factors could have led to the present fiasco. Firstly, it is obviously the lack of upgradation of recruitment and management system over time that has led to the shortage of officers. The Centre should come up with innovative reforms in this direction to solve the problem at a broader level. The second prominent factor that has driven the proposed amendments could be political in nature. The Centre has had some tussles with state governments of West Bengal, Tamil Nadu and Kerala on the deputation issue — the recent being the denial of deputation of Alapan Bandyopadhyay for Central services. The Centre has asked for comments from states before January 25. Some states have raised their apprehension in advance. West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee has written to the Department of Training and Personnel that the amendments are against the principles of cooperative federalism. One of the key concerns raised by her was that the provision will affect the planning of states on the account of uncertainty over the deputation of officers on Centre's command. It must be noted here that Rule 6 (1) already contains a provision that allows Centre's decision to prevail in the matters of conflict with states. The most profound impact of the proposed amendments could be on the AIS itself. The amendments may disincentivize the states to shift more towards the state civil services officers due to loyalty issues, leading to marginalization of AIS in the longer run. The Centre is rightly making efforts to address the shortage of officers at the Central level. Notably, it is also pushing for lateral entry to Central posts. The government can further head towards larger reforms to address the issue. As far as amendment to Rule 6 (1) is concerned, the comments from states should be considered genuinely once they come. Interests of the state governments ruled by non-BJP opposition parties should be given equal weightage to avoid confrontation and chaos. To preserve the polity and governance in a stable state, all the stakeholders — Centre, states and the officers — must head towards greater consultation. It goes without saying that state governments must cooperate with the Centre to solve the problems faced by it, at the same time keeping their own interests intact.