As expands from 3 to 17 districts, concerns arise about the adequacy of civil services to manage this growth effectively.
Kohima, India Jul 26, 2026 ALN: Atono Tsükrü Kense
Kohima | July 26
From three districts at statehood to 17 today, 's administrative map has been redrawn repeatedly over six decades, but questions linger over whether the state’s civil services have expanded proportionately to staff this growing state machinery.
When was formed as the 16th state of the Indian Union on December 1, 1963, it had only three districts: Kohima, Mokokchung, and Tuensang. The number remained unchanged for a decade. On December 19, 1973, four new districts were carved out simultaneously: Wokha and Zunheboto from Mokokchung, Mon from Tuensang, and Phek from Kohima, bringing the total to seven.
The pace then slowed considerably. On December 2, 1997, Dimapur was carved out of Kohima and inaugurated in April 1998. Three more districts, Kiphire, Longleng, and Peren, followed on October 24, 2003, taking the count to eleven.
The most recent phase of expansion was compressed within a short time. Noklak, previously a sub-district of Tuensang, was elevated to district status on January 20, 2021. On December 18, 2021, three more districts were created: Chümoukedima and Niuland from Dimapur, and Tseminyu from Kohima. Shamator, carved from Tuensang, became the 16th district on January 19, 2022. Meluri, upgraded from a sub-division of Phek district, was added in 2024, taking the total to 17.
The creation of new districts aims to enhance accessibility and efficiency in service delivery across remote areas. However, the administrative machinery to run them has not kept pace seamlessly.
A telling indicator of the cadre strain is the routine practice of assigning officers “additional charge” of multiple postings simultaneously. Transfer orders from the government routinely show NCS officers holding charge of two or more sub-divisions at once.
The most recent major reshuffle on March 31, 2026, coinciding with the transition to the 2026–27 financial year, saw the government reshuffle a total of 74 officers across the IAS, NCS, and NSS cadres, considered part of a broader exercise to streamline governance and strengthen field-level administration.
The Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (DPAR) is the “cadre controlling authority” for the IAS (Indian Administrative Service), NCS (Civil Service), and NSS (Secretariat Service).
Each district is headed by a Deputy Commissioner responsible for maintaining law and order, revenue administration, and implementing development programmes. With each new district requiring not just a DC but also a full complement of ADCs, SDOs, EACs, and police officers down to the sub-divisional level, the administrative demand from 14 additional districts since 1973 is substantial.
The state government has not publicly released a comprehensive cadre strength review to indicate whether NCS and NPS sanctioned posts have been revised in line with each round of district creation, a gap that administrative observers say needs to be addressed if the intent behind creating new districts is to be meaningfully realised.
‘Not in equal proportion’: NCS, NPS shortfall
On the query of whether, with the number of districts increasing, the number of NCS and NPS officers has also increased to meet this new requirement, an officer on the ground responded, “not in any equal proportion.”
The officer, speaking on anonymity, said, “The feasibility of handling multiple responsibilities depends largely on the nature of the work… Routine tasks or assignments that do not require constant file movement may be manageable across more than one jurisdiction.”
The arrangement of “additional charge,” the officer said, is often driven by manpower shortages or situations where full-time engagement is not considered necessary. “However, roles demanding daily oversight, especially in departments dealing with law and order or essential services, are not suited for additional charges and may affect timely service delivery.”
Performance is monitored through Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APAR), although these assessments can sometimes be subjective, she added.
Another officer was more critical, describing the practice as “not the most desirable” and largely impractical. According to the officer, splitting attention across jurisdictions can compromise service delivery and lead to “absentee administration,” which may weaken decision-making on the ground.
While admitting that manpower is “almost always short,” the officer stated matter-of-fact that this arrangement will definitely affect the speed of decision-making and public service, explaining that “decisions are best made when one is hands-on, in-situ, or on-site to ‘smell and feel’ the pulse of the matter or area that you are administering.”
Absentee administration, he asserted, “can never evince good decisions nor deliver effective service to the people.”
Highlighting persistent challenges such as inadequate infrastructure, lack of proper office and residential facilities, and insufficient logistical support, including vehicles and travel allowances, he pointed out that these constraints, coupled with the demands of additional responsibilities, can lead to both physical and mental strain.
While delegation to subordinates and seeking support from senior officials are often used as coping mechanisms, the officer cautioned that such arrangements cannot fully replace on-ground presence. In practice, he noted that officers tend to remain primarily engaged at their original place of posting, with additional charge responsibilities often managed indirectly.
“Logically, affinity to the original place of posting may outweigh that of the additional charge in most cases, unless for a specific incident or purpose,” stated that officer, adding that the additional charge is more or less left to the charge of subordinate officers or staff.
‘Minimal impact on governance,’ says NCSA
According to the Civil Service Association (NCSA), no administrative officer in the state is currently handling charge of two districts simultaneously. In a response to queries, NCSA President S Tainiu stated that while some officers have been given additional responsibilities, these are limited within the same district or administrative sub-division.
Typically, she said, such arrangements involve officers at district or sub-divisional headquarters overseeing nearby administrative or EAC circles to ensure that all areas remain functionally staffed.
When asked if the “additional charge” affects the speed of decision-making and public service, Tainiu maintained that this system has minimal impact on governance, as administrative mechanisms are in place to maintain continuity and efficiency in service delivery.
However, she acknowledged that officers assigned “additional charge” do face certain challenges, including increased workload and administrative burden, logistical difficulties in commuting, and financial strain, particularly due to the absence of separate vehicle maintenance support and time management constraints in attending multiple responsibilities simultaneously.
On accountability, she noted, “officers remain responsible for both their primary posting and any additional charge, with supervision and reporting continuing through the established administrative hierarchy.”
She responded negatively when asked if there are any clear or specific guidelines on how officers should prioritise work between their primary work and additional charge. However, she said, “Officers are expected to give equal attention and importance to both roles.”
This is the first of a two-part series.
To learn more about the latest developments in Elections, stay updated with our exclusive reports and analyses on AiLensNews.
