Central Govt's overriding powers over States on transfer, deputation of IPS cadres under Rule 6(1) of IPS Rules challenged in Supreme Court

Can the Central government override the decision of State government and have uncontested powers when it comes to transfer and deputation of IPS cadres, ignoring the concerns and perspectives of States?.This is the primary question raised in a Public Interest Litigation filed before the Supreme Court challenging the Constitutionality of Rule 6(1) of Indian Police Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 as governed under All India Services Act..The plea by West Bengal based Supreme Court lawyer, Abu Sohel, has prayed that Rule 6(1) be struck down for violation of the Constitution of India and public policies..Rule 6(1) reads as follows:."A cadre officer may, with the concurrence of the State government or the State governments concerned and the Central government, be deputed for service under the Central government or another State government or under a company, association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not which is wholly or substantially owned or controlled by the Central government or by another State government. Provided that in case of any disagreement, the matter shall be decided by the Central government and the State government or State governments concerned shall give effect to the decision of the Central government.".The petition states that the intention of legislature while promulgating this Rule back then may have been in consonance with the Constitutional mandate. However, with the passage of time, several instances came to fore wherein Centre and State were at loggerheads due arbitrary invocation of the Rule, the plea highlights. It created havoc in the law and order condition and in administrative structure of the concerned State Governments, it has been contended. .It is the petitioner's argument that currently, the States have to bear the brunt of arbitrary actions taken by the Central government under the Rule. .There have been several face offs between Centre and the State which "ultimately threatened the federal structure of our Constitution."."In 2001, the infamous and ugly spat took place between the Centre and the Government of Tamil Nadu when the Centre decided to call back three IPS officers from state of Tamil Nadu," reads the plea..There will be more will be more such instances of conflicts between the Centre and States, if the Rule continues to remain on statute book, the petitioner has submitted. ."Impugned Rule creates unjustifiable and illegal deviation from intent of our Constitutional makers to create harmony between Centre and State and to boost up the essence of Centre State relations which is a paramount requirement in order create welfare state," the petition argues..The petition has also claimed that the Rule violates right to dignity which is a facet of right to life under Article 21. The ."Arbitrary action by the Central government by virtue of the impugned Rule (supra) ultimately plays havoc with right of Officers to live a dignified life as guaranteed," the plea states..Further, it has also been submitted that there is a dichotomy between to Rule 5(1) and Rule 6(1). Rule 5(1) states that allocation of cadre officers to the various cadres shall be made by the Central Governemnt in consultation with the State Government or State Governments concerned” and it by this concurrence that such transfers would happen..Thus, as per Rule 5(1), allocation of cadres to a State or transfer from one cadre to another, requires the concurrence of the State government. However as per Rule 6 (1), any disagreement in the the matter shall be decided by the Central government and the State government is bound to give effect to the decision of the Central Government, the petitioner contends. .The petitioner has also contended violation of Article 14 on the ground of unreasonable classification and manifest arbitrariness. ."The impugned Rule of 1954 irrationally and arbitrarily classifies and offers unequal treatment under law to those who are responsible for maintain law and order in a state and well versed with the demography of that particular area within State," the petition reads.