Appointment of five IFS (B) category officers as ambassadors has triggered a controversy in the Ministry of External Affairs with young IFS officers questioning the opaque process of appointment of heads of mission. The MEA recently appointed IFS (B) officers for ambassadorial stints in Venezuela, South Sudan, Surinam, Cuba and Papua New Guinea. With this, schism developed between IFS rank officers directly selected through UPSC examination and IFS (B) staff members who rise through ranks to become IFS officers in 12 years. Three IFS officers have even threatened to move court against the manner in which IFS (B) rank officers who join service as assistants, are being inducted into IFS by the MEA. They are unhappy with the existence of an archaic rule which grants three-year ante-dating of seniority to IFS (B) staff members. This is seen as an unhealthy practice and IFS rank officials want it to be addressed soon. However, in the present context what has triggered a rift between IFS and IFS (B) rank staff members is that one of five recently appointed ambassadors has not even reached the level of director; he is just a deputy secretary level official. Lack of sufficient number of IFS officers is blamed for the current situation in the MEA. In fact, the average IFS intake per year was only 12 in between 1999 and 2004 and this is what is said to have exacerbated the problem for the MEA in manning its diplomatic missions spread in more than 180 countries in the world. But bad cadre management over the years on account of archaic promotion rules is also one of the key factors of bad blood between IFS and IFS(B) rank officials.