Civil Services Board's Recommendation Mandatory for All IAS Officer Appointments, Transfers, and Postings.

The First Applicant, the Kerala IAS Association, and Applicants 2 and 3, individual IAS officers, filed Original Application No. 180/00367/2023 alleging violations of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954, and its 2014 Amendment.

They claimed that the State Government frequently transferred IAS officers without recommendations from the Civil Services Board (CSB), which was constituted by Annexure A3, and filled cadre posts with non-IAS officers or retired IAS officers for political considerations.

Specific instances included the posting of an IPS officer (8th Respondent) as Excise Commissioner (Annexure A6), a private individual (9th Respondent) as Director of KILA (Annexure A7), and a retired IAS officer (10th Respondent) as Director General, IMG (Annexure A9).

The Applicants argued that these actions contravened the Supreme Court's judgment in *T.S.R. Subramanian & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.* [(2013) 15 SCC 732], which mandated a minimum tenure for civil servants and the constitution of CSBs.

An interim order dated November 13, 2023, directed the State not to issue appointment, transfer, and posting orders for IAS cadre posts without CSB recommendations where applicable.

The 2nd Applicant in OA No. 367/2023 (who is the sole Applicant in OA No. 418/2025), Dr. B. Ashok IAS, was posted as Agricultural Production Commissioner and Principal Secretary, Agriculture Department.

He was subsequently transferred in January 2025 to the Local Self Government Reforms Commission (Annexure A4 in OA No. 418/2025), which he challenged in OA No. 19/2025; the Tribunal allowed this OA, setting aside the transfer.

While still holding his original post, he was again transferred on August 30, 2025, to the Kerala Transport Development Finance Corporation (KTDFC) as Chairman and Managing Director (Annexure A10).

This was challenged in OA No. 418/2025, and an interim stay was granted on September 9, 2025.

On September 15, 2025, while the stay was active, the State issued another order (Annexure A34) withdrawing Annexure A10 and transferring him as Principal Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, effective September 17, 2025.

This subsequent transfer was also challenged.

Two Contempt Petitions (CPC No. 9/2025 and CPC No. 41/2025) were also filed by Dr. B. Ashok, alleging violation of the interim order in OA No. 367/2023 due to his premature transfers without CSB recommendations.

1. Whether OA No. 367/2023 is maintainable when not filed by persons individually aggrieved under the Administrative Tribunals Act of 1985.

2. Whether Rule 7 of the IAS (Cadre) Rules, 1954, as amended in 2014, empowers the State Government to appoint (including transfer) and post an IAS cadre officer before and on completion of the minimum prescribed tenure, without the recommendation of the Civil Services Board (CSB).

3. Whether the posts of Excise Commissioner, Director KILA, and Director General IMG are IAS cadre posts as included in the Schedule to the Indian Administrative Service (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regulations, 1955, as amended in 2013.

4. Whether the posting of non-IAS officers (Respondents 8, 9, and 10) to these posts by redesignation, renaming, or creation of new posts constitutes a colourable exercise of jurisdiction and violates the IAS (Cadre) Rules.

5. Whether the transfer and posting of the Applicant in OA No. 418/2025 as Chairman and Managing Director of KTDFC by Annexures A10 and A23 are void for lack of CSB recommendation and violation of IAS (Cadre) Rules and IAS (Pay) Rules, 2016.

6. Whether the transfer and posting of the Applicant in OA No. 418/2025 as Principal Secretary, Personnel Administrative Reforms Department, by Annexure A34 are invalid due to the absence of CSB recommendation and being issued during the pendency of litigation and interim stay.

7. Whether the Respondents in the Contempt Petitions have *prima facie* committed contempt of the Tribunal.

8. What reliefs are to be granted.

Sections 19 and 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, require an application to be by a "person aggrieved" for "his grievance".

Rule 4(5)(b) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, allows associations to file applications if at least one affected person joins.

The judgment in *Dr. Duryodhan Sahu & Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra & Ors.* [(1998) 7 SCC 273], held that Administrative Tribunals cannot entertain Public Interest Litigation from strangers to the service concerned.

Rule 7 of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954, as amended by the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Amendment Rules, 2014, particularly Rules 7(1), 7(3), and 7(5), mandates CSB recommendations for "all appointments of cadre officers" and for transfers before a minimum two-year tenure.

The principle from *T.S.R. Subramanian & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.* [(2013) 15 SCC 732], regarding the need for a minimum tenure and the constitution of CSBs to prevent indiscriminate transfers and ensure good governance, was central to the interpretation of Rule 7.

The distinction between "recruitment" and "appointment" discussed in *Prafulla Kumar Swain v. Prakash Chandra Misra* [1993 Supp (3) SCC 181] was considered.

The Indian Administrative Service (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regulations, 1955, and the Abkari Act were referenced to determine if the Excise Commissioner post is an IAS cadre post.

The Tribunal found OA No. 367/2023 maintainable because the 2nd applicant, Dr. B. Ashok IAS, was an "aggrieved person" who had offered himself for the Excise Commissioner post, which was filled by a non-IAS officer, thus establishing an individual grievance.

This, coupled with the association espousing the common cause of its members, satisfied the criteria under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and Rule 4(5)(b) of the Procedure Rules.

The case was distinguished from a public interest litigation, as allowed by *Duryodhan Sahu*'s case.

Regarding transfers and postings, the Tribunal rejected the State's narrow interpretation of "appointment" in Rule 7(1) of the IAS (Cadre) Rules, 2014, and Annexure A3.

It held that "all appointments of cadre officers" and "all appointments to cadre posts" made by the CSB must cover *all* transfers and postings, not just initial appointments or premature transfers.

The Court noted that the comprehensive language of Rule 7 and Annexure A3 in its "Functions" section indicated that special procedures were carved out for premature transfers *after* the general provision requiring CSB recommendations for all appointments.

The State's own practice of submitting proposals for officers who had completed their minimum tenure to the CSB further supported this interpretation, showing a prior understanding that encompassed all transfers.

Therefore, the interim order was confirmed, clarifying that "appointment" includes all transfers and postings.

The Tribunal held that the posts of Excise Commissioner, Director KILA, and Director General IMG are IAS cadre posts.

For the Excise Commissioner, the Tribunal found that despite the State's claim that it was appropriate for an IPS officer, the post was not listed in the IPS (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regulations, 1955.

Historical appointments of IAS officers, including the first Commissioner of Excise, further suggested it was an IAS cadre post.

For KILA and IMG, the Tribunal noted that the original posts of Director/Director General were IAS cadre posts as per Annexure A4 and A58.

The appointment of non-IAS officers (Respondents 9 and 10) through redesignation or creation of parallel posts was deemed a "colourable and malicious exercise of executive functions" aiming to circumvent the IAS (Cadre) Rules.

The retention of the original cadre posts as vacant while these individuals served effectively usurped the roles meant for IAS officers.

The appointment of the 9th respondent as Director General KILA was nullified by the High Court already.

In OA No. 418/2025, the Tribunal set aside Annexure A34, the order transferring the applicant Dr. B. Ashok IAS, to the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department.

This transfer was made without CSB recommendation, which the Tribunal had already determined was required for *all* transfers.

Furthermore, it was issued on September 15, 2025, while an interim stay on the previous transfer order (Annexure A10) was in force, set to expire on September 16, 2025.

This timing was seen as an attempt to pre-emptively circumvent the Tribunal's orders, suggesting impropriety.

While *prima facie* contempt was found in CP(C) Nos. 9/2025 and 41/2025, the Tribunal decided not to proceed further, acknowledging that the legal issues concerning CSB recommendations for all transfers were only now definitively settled, but issued a strong warning against future violations.

It declared that all appointments, transfers, and postings of IAS officers in Kerala, whether or not on completion of the minimum tenure under Rule 7(3) of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 2014, must be made in consultation with the Civil Services Board (CSB) and in accordance with Rule 7 and its Schedule.

The interim order dated November 13, 2023, in OA No. 367/2023, was confirmed with this clarification.

It was declared that posts notified as cadre posts by the Union Government under Annexure A4 must only be filled by IAS cadre officers, and the 2nd Respondent (State) was directed not to fill such posts with non-IAS or retired IAS officers.

Specifically, the posts of Excise Commissioner, Director KILA, and Director General IMG were declared IAS cadre posts that can only be held by IAS officers.

Any non-IAS/retired IAS officers currently holding these posts were ordered to be removed forthwith, and the posts to remain vacant.

Decisions taken by such officers until the date of this judgment remain saved.

Filling IAS cadre posts by non-IAS/retired IAS officers through redesignation, renaming, or any other method while keeping the cadre post vacant was declared an "irregular and colourable exercise of executive functions".

The State Government was directed to regularly submit quarterly reports to the Central Government as mandated by Rule 7(3) of Annexure A2(a), and the Union Government was obligated to ensure timely submission.

In OA No. 418/2025, Annexure A34 was set aside, and Annexures A10 and A23 were considered withdrawn.

The applicant (Dr. B. Ashok IAS) was to continue in his presently held post.

However, since the applicant had completed his tenure, the State Government was deemed free to issue appropriate transfer orders, strictly adhering to relevant Rules, Regulations, and law.

The Contempt Petitions Nos. 9/2025 and 41/2025 were closed, subject to the observations made, with a warning against future violations of orders.

No order as to costs was made.