Mentor’s comment-
- https://indianexpress.com/
article/opinion/columns/ upsetting-the-centre-state- balance-ias-cadre-7761492/ lite/ - In the intro, mention proposed changes in rule for Central deputation of IAS officers.
- In the body, mention articles in constitution for services and control for state services and All-India services. In the implications mention impact on federal structure, reluctance by states for appointing IAS officers etc.
- Conclude by mentioning the need to take into account the concerns of states while changing the rules.
Order Id #0000521272
Priyanka
Introduction, first line is fine. After that, mention the new changes i.e. earlier consent used to be taken from state government as well as the officer concerned, when moving an officer from state to central deputation. This has been done away with, centre’s decision was final earlier too.
Further, centre has stretched the rules so that it can pull any number of officers from the states.
Differences mentioned after that are fine but you should try to mention Article 309 and 312.
In implications, points about federalism, motivation of officers are good. However, also mention the practical implications such as
states losing their key officers to mandatory central deputation;
States may resort to altering their Transaction of Business Rules to divest IAS officers of key posts in the state, and vesting the same with the state officers;
States may provide space for retired bureaucrats to re-enter administration as special appointees, outside the cadre rules.
Conclusion is fine.
Keep practicing. 🙂
2.5/10
ID-Ir1zuLIKkQ1gwr
Karun
In intro, mention briefly what are the changes proposed, you are writing implications of the changes without mentioning the changes.
You can just mention that earlier consent used to be taken from state government as well as the officer concerned, when moving an officer from state to central deputation. This has been done away with. Further, centre has stretched the rules so that it can pull any number of officers from the states.
In differences, points are fine, last point can be avoided, try to mention article 309,312.
Implications are fine, practical implications like States losing key officers; altering their Transaction of Business Rules to divest IAS officers of key posts in the state, and vesting the same with the state officers;
providing space for retired bureaucrats to re-enter administration as special appointees, outside the cadre rules- can be mentioned.
Way forward is fine, try to write a concluding statement.
Keep practicing. 🙂
2.5/10
Order Id #0000520807
Anoop
Good attempt, you have broadly covered the important points. Understanding is good.
Introduction is fine, other than unilateral decision-making, centre has stretched the rules so that it can pull any number of officers from the states. You can mention that.
In implications, you have mentioned shortage of officers in states.
Differences mentioned are good, nice that you have mentioned constitutional articles.
Implications are also good, both practical and constitutional dimensions are mentioned.
States may start providing space for retired bureaucrats to re-enter administration as special appointees, outside the cadre rules- this can be mentioned.
Conclusion is good.
Keep practicing.🙂
5.5/10
0000513717
Please review
*NOT CHECKED*
Likhitha
Intro, first para is fine. In differences, you can mention articles 309 and 312 of the constitution. Since differences are exclusively asked, it will be nice if you can make a table and mention 3-4 differences.
Proposed amendments are good, however, you can mention that earlier consent used to be taken from state government as well as the officer concerned, when moving an officer from state to central deputation. This has been done away with, centre’s decision was final earlier too.
Implications are fine, you can mention 1-2 positives also such as efficiency of administration at centre and tackling shortage of officers at centre. Then go for negatives, points mentioned by you are fine.
Some immediate implications other than shortage of officers such as states altering their Transaction of Business Rules to divest IAS officers of key posts in the state, and vesting the same with the state officers;
providing space for retired bureaucrats to re-enter administration as special appointees, outside the cadre rules- can be mentioned.
Way forward and conclusion are good.
Keep practicing. Read some other answers. 🙂