Most people have a tendency of holding the IAS responsible for anything that goes in the country.

In recent weeks there has been a debate on whether the IAS as a service has delivered or has it failed the nation. Different viewpoints are being expressed. Indeed, there can be arguments on both sides of the balance. Indeed, there can be arguments on both sides of the balance. I personally feel that IAS has delivered despite the constraints under which it functions. Ground level realities are very different from the view from outside which many sections of the society tend to take about the performance of the IAS as a service. It is also felt that in the IAS there is complete job security and promotion is automatic on the basis of seniority and there is no objective performance appraisal system in place to determine the sustainability of officers for senior level posts. There are many who have a tendency of holding the IAS responsible for anything that goes wrong in the country.

Strangely, the general view is that the IAS as a service is very closely knit and self perpetuating and always defends itself and members of the service. This is very different from reality where IAS officers are more concerned about their individual careers rather than to think about the IAS fraternity as a whole. Far too often the IAS officers have a propensity of criticizing the service and those who are senior love to say that the ethos and values of the service are on the decline in the younger batches. I do not believe this to be true. There are the good, bad and the ugly in the IAS as there are in other professions and it is incorrect to try and give the entire service a bad name.

Some years ago in the Uttar Pradesh IAS Association some officers who became crusaders against corruption in the service organized a secret ballot to vote for three most corrupt officers in the UP cadre. This move was hailed in the media and various forums but with a negative connotation and the story went around that the IAS was a corrupt service. An act of self cleansing attempted by some officers was turned into a tool to damage the reputation of the entire service.

A colleague of mine has very rightly pointed out that many IAS officers in order to show themselves as being intellectually progressive criticize their own service. Other sections of the society then use these very utterances to condemn the IAS. Introspection and self improvement are essential but the service has enough achievements to its credit to make its members feel a sense of pride in them.

Many individual IAS officers have done outstanding work in the Districts and in policy making but, unfortunately, most of it not documented. Only recently with the advent of social media have some IAS officers begun to talk about to work done by them and the innovative way in which they have delivered good governance the service as a whole can be, justifiably, proud of itself for having played a very important role in keeping the nation together and also ensuring that the government works according to the democratic principles and the spirit of the constitution. Some IAS officers have posted on social media that no doubt the steel frame has got corroded but how do we handle the corrosive environment in which IAS officers function?

Many people, when they discuss this issue with me, are quick to point out that rules and regulations are made by the IAS and if they are hampering the working of the government then the IAS should change them. It is true to some extent and it is also a fact that the IAS officers have been responsible for modernizing many rules and procedures but they cannot change everything.

They also function under a system where the politician is the master.

One thing that has emerged from all the discussion is that there is a need for a performance based promotion system for the IAS. There is a very extensive system in existence which has been continuously improved upon over the years but it is still not very satisfactory as it does not separate the wheat from the chaff. A large proportion of officers get a very good or outstanding rating without their meriting it. The promotions are on the basis of seniority subject to unfit which means only those involved in court cases or departmental enquiries are left out. The Government of India has recently introduced a three sixty degree evaluation system for the Secretary level and other senior posts. This has resulted in almost 30% to 50% of a batch not being able to get promotion to the Secretary level.

However, the working of this system is quite opaque and has caused a lot of resentment amongst officers. My view is that there is a definite need for an objective evaluation system for the IAS which should lead to the promotion of those officers who acquire new skills and knowledge, have qualities of leadership, have good communication skills, have the capacity to motivate and inspire a team and are not scared of taking prompt decisions in public interest. Officers who deliver results and outcomes should reach the top and not those who merely push files, are risk averse and believe in maintaining the status-quo. Unfortunately, the current system encourages good file work and not delivery of results. This is a difficult exercise because in my experience I am yet to come across a truly objective performance evaluation system. There is always an element of subjectivity which can become dangerous in the current environment where the politicians are evaluating the performance of officers and there is a tendency to brand officers along lines of caste, community or perceived proximity to members of a political party merely because they have served on important posts in a particular government.

It is easy to say that an IAS officer should give free and frank advice and uphold what is correct but these days it has become hazardous to do so particularly in State Governments where the Minister or Chief Minister takes this as an indication of willful dissent and is prone to transfer you to unimportant posts or worse start an enquiry against you. Today the IAS officer has to walk the political tightrope very adroitly otherwise he could have a fall from which it would take him years to recover.

It must also be kept in mind that the basic principle of governance is to have the right man at the right place. However, rarely does an IAS officer get to work with the team of his choice. He has to give results working often with a mediocre team and facing political interference at every level.

Despite the above, several IAS officers have achieved a lot and have been shining examples of competence and integrity. There is a lot of scope for introspection, self improvement and also major reforms in the entire system of governance. However, given the ground realities it would be harsh to say that the IAS has not delivered at all or failed the nation.

Click to read original article.

According to the data provided by DoPT the authorized strength of IAS officers is 6,699 as on 1^st January, 2019 but the actual officers available are 5205

In a welcome move the Department of Personal and Training (DoPT) has given an in-principle approval for constituting a committee to look into the deficit of IAS officers at the center and to suggest a recruitment plan for the years 2021 to 2030. The main issue is the shortage of IAS officers in various senior positions. The estimated amount of shortage as told by DoPT to a parliamentary panel is in excess of 1,500.

According to the data provided by DoPT the authorized strength of IAS officers is 6,699 as on 1^st January, 2019 but the actual officers available are 5205. It is also a matter of concern that this gap between the sanctioned strength and actual availability is gradually increasing.

The genesis of this shortage can be traced back to the reports of the Central Pay commissions, particularly, that of 1996. This was a period of grave financial crises being faced by Government of India as well as the state governments.

I remember that the Government of UP was facing a situation where the daily cash flow management had become a challenge and we were concerned about the revenue as well as fiscal deficit. The pay commission had recommended higher pay scales for all government officers and employees but had also cautioned about the financial impact. A major part of the recommendation of the pay commission report was about how to control the expenditure on salaries.

I recall that we had arrived at a figure of 3 percent employees retiring every year and it was decided to fill up only 2 percent of the vacancies thus created and in this manner gradually reduce the government staff. This did not take into account the imbalance that such a measure would bring about.

In addition to the above the recruitment to various government posts was slashed and, in particular, the IAS was a major sufferer. The batch strength of the IAS was reduced considerably and brought down to below 100 every year. This led to serious crises and I remember that in a state like UP where we have 75 districts it became a very difficult task to find officers to man the district administration. In fact, several batches of the IAS had only about 4 to 5 people joining the UP cadre. This trend continued for quite some time and is one of the major reasons for the shortage of officers of a particular seniority which is having an adverse impact today at both Government of India and state government levels.

In particular, there is a huge shortage of officers at the Deputy Secretary and Director level in the Government of India. The realization soon dawned on the policy makers and larger batches began to be recruited going up to a level of 180 every year. It is not clear whether a proper rational assessment has been done to decide upon this figure and there are those who feel that this number should be further increased.

In the light of this I find merit in the Government of India decision to setup a committee to examine this issue. We must make an assessment of the number of posts that would be required in the IAS to meet the current and future challenges of governance. They will have to take into account the number of officers recruited directly into the IAS as well as those promoted from the state civil services.

The shortage is more manifest at the Government of India level than in the states. This is because the states can fill up vacancies by rapid promotion of the officers belonging to the state civil services. The number of years required for state civil service officers to be promoted to the IAS varies from state to state ranging from 10 to 25 years.

Again, this is not based on any scientific study but is implemented more as a rule of thumb or decided by the kind of pressure which state officers can mount on the political executive. It is also pertinent to note that the state civil service officers, but for a few exceptions, do not opt for a posting in Government of India on promotion to the IAS.

There are some obvious reasons because of which young IAS officers do not opt for Government of India at the Deputy Secretary / Director level.

The fact is that at the same level of seniority an officer gets much greater creature comforts at the state level as compared to Central government. Many officers are posted as district officers which is one of the most attractive posting for an IAS officer. Even in the state government he is either head of department or in a significant position in the state secretariat where he does not have to bother about issues like an official vehicle, house, school, independent office etc. At the same level if he comes to Government of India he finds that very often he might even have to share an office room and is not likely to get an official vehicle.

A very interesting feature is that in Government of India only Secretaries have an attached toilet to their office while the others have to use a common facility. Then it might take him months to get an official accommodation and for this period he has to fend for himself. The houses allotted, also, are nowhere near what he would get in the state government. To this are added the woes of getting your child admitted to a good school and getting adequate medical facilities.

It is, thus, no rocket science as to why a young officer prefers to stay back in the states rather than going to Centre leading to a shortage of officers at the Center. Moreover, below a Joint Secretary level officers in GOI mainly do clerical work where no decision making takes place at their level. The position is very different in the districts and state governments.

In the IAS, out of total vacancies in a state cadre a certain percentage is filled by those candidates who belong to that state while the balance goes to officers from outside. It is generally seen that the “insiders” prefers to stay back in the state while the “outsiders” have a greater propensity to opt for GOI.

Also, officers allotted to North Eastern states prefer to come to Delhi while officers from states nearer to Delhi often prefer to remain in the states.

It is good that the entire issue is finally being examined. It is clear that to attract IAS officers to GOI at a level below Joint Secretary the service conditions would have to be improved and jobs enriched. The whole issue of requirement of IAS officers at each level needs to be scientifically determined. The reality is that the intake of IAS officers each year will have to be enhanced.