DEHRADUN: The Uttarakhand High Court has sought replies from the Centre and the state government on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) alleging that transfers and postings of IAS, IPS and IFS officers in the state have not been carried out in accordance with Supreme Court directions and cadre rules for nearly 12 years.
A division bench directed both governments to file counter-affidavits within two weeks. The matter will be heard again after three weeks.
The PIL was filed by Bageshwar-based social activist Pankaj Pandey, who is associated with the citizens’ group Nagrik Manch.
The petition alleges a systematic breach of safeguards meant to insulate the bureaucracy from political interference and ensure administrative stability.
It also questions the scrutiny of officers’ movable and immovable assets, claiming that mandatory disclosures under the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968, have been reduced to a mere formality.
The petition names the Union Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), Uttarakhand’s Chief Secretary in his capacity as chairman of the Civil Services Board, and senior officials from the personnel, home and forest departments as respondents.
The case is anchored in the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment of October 31, 2013, in T.S.R. Subramanian vs Union of India.
In that verdict, the apex court directed the Centre and states to constitute Civil Services Boards and ensure minimum fixed tenures for officers to curb arbitrary and frequent transfers.
Following the judgment, the Centre amended the IAS, IPS and IFS Cadre Rules on January 28, 2014.
Under the amended rules, the PIL points out, recommendations of the Civil Services Board are mandatory for appointments and transfers to cadre posts, and officers should ordinarily be given a minimum tenure of two years.
If the competent authority disagrees with the board’s recommendation, it must record the reasons in writing. Any premature transfer is also required to be reported to the Centre.
Citing documents obtained under the Right to Information Act, the petitioner claims that although a Civil Services Board for IAS and IFS officers was constituted in Uttarakhand in 2014, its recommendations were not effectively followed in hundreds of IAS transfers since then.
Pandey has alleged that in several cases, transfers were effected on oral instructions and approval from the Chief Minister was obtained after the transfer orders had been issued.
The petition further alleges that many officers were shifted before completing the stipulated two-year tenure, in violation of the amended rules. It has sought an independent inquiry into such transfers and the disclosure of relevant records before the court.
On IPS postings, the PIL states that a proposal to set up a Civil Services Board was moved in August 2018 but was never taken forward.
Instead, the Home Department continued to use the Police Establishment Board for transfers, a mechanism which, according to the petitioner, does not satisfy the intent and mandate of the Supreme Court’s directions.