IAS Cadre Postings Require Civil Services Board Recommendation, Regardless of Tenure.

The Kerala IAS Association, represented by its Secretary, along with two individual IAS officers (Applicants 1, 2, and 3), approached the Central Administrative Tribunal alleging violations of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954, and the 2014 Amendment Rules.

They specifically contended that indiscreet transfers and postings of IAS officers were being made without the recommendations of the Civil Services Board (CSB), which was constituted pursuant to the Supreme Court's judgment in *T.S.R. Subramanian & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.* [(2013) 15 SCC 732].

The applicants further alleged that cadre posts meant for IAS officers were being filled by non-IAS officers or retired IAS officers, citing specific instances of Respondents 8, 9, and 10 (Excise Commissioner, Director of KILA, and Director General of IMG, respectively).

In Original Application No. 180/00418/2025, Dr. B. Ashok IAS (the second applicant in the first OA) challenged his transfer from Agricultural Production Commissioner to Chairman and Managing Director of Kerala Transport Development Finance Corporation (KTDFC) vide Annexure A10, arguing it was in violation of IAS (Cadre) Rules, IAS (Pay) Rules, and issued without CSB recommendation.

This transfer order (Annexure A10) was initially stayed by the Tribunal.

Subsequently, the State Government issued a new order (Annexure A34) withdrawing Annexure A10 and transferring the applicant to Principal Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, effective the day after the Tribunal's scheduled hearing, which the applicant also challenged.

1. Whether Original Application No. 367/2023, filed by an association and individual members, is maintainable under the Administrative Tribunals Act of 1985.

2. Whether Rule 7 of the IAS (Cadre) Rules, 1954, as amended in 2014, requires the Civil Services Board's recommendation for all appointments, transfers, and postings of IAS officers, regardless of whether the minimum prescribed tenure has been completed.

3. Whether the interim order granted in OA No. 367 of 2023 dated 13.11.2023 should be confirmed.

4. Whether the post of Excise Commissioner in Kerala is a cadre post included in the Schedule to the Indian Administrative Service (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regulations, 1955, as amended in 2013.

5. Whether the posting of private respondents Nos. 9 and 10 in OA No. 367 of 2023 as Director General and Director respectively of KILA and IMG by redesignation or creation of new posts constitutes a colourable exercise of jurisdiction and violates the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules.

6. Whether the transfer and posting of the applicant as Chairman and Managing Director of KTDFC by Annexures A10 and A23 in OA No. 418 of 2025 are void and non est for lack of Civil Services Board recommendation and contravention of IAS (Cadre) Rules and IAS (Pay) Rules, 2016.

7. Whether the transfer and posting of the applicant as Principal Secretary, Personnel Administrative Reforms Department, by Annexure A34 in OA No. 418 of 2025 is invalid due to the absence of CSB recommendation and its issuance during the pendency of the Original Application.

8. Whether the respondents in CP(C) No. 9 of 2025 and CP(C) No. 41 of 2025 have prima facie committed contempt of the Tribunal.

The Tribunal primarily applied the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, specifically Sections 2(b), 19, and 20, to determine the maintainability of applications.

It relied on the Supreme Court's pronouncement in *T.S.R. Subramanian & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.* [(2013) 15 SCC 732], which mandated the constitution of Civil Services Boards (CSB) to ensure tenure protection and transparency for civil servants, leading to the amendment of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954, by the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Amendment Rules, 2014.

Rule 7 of the amended IAS (Cadre) Rules, 2014, requiring CSB recommendations for "all appointments of cadre officers" and prescribing a minimum tenure of two years, along with its Schedule outlining CSB functions and procedures, formed the core legal framework for assessing the legality of transfers and postings.

The Tribunal distinguished *Prafulla Kumar Swain v. Prakash Chandra Misra* [1993 Supp (3) SCC 181], noting its irrelevance to the scope of "appointments" in Rule 7(1) of the IAS (Cadre) Rules, 2014, regarding transfers and postings.

The Indian Administrative Service (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regulations, 1955, and the corresponding IPS Regulations, were applied to determine whether specific posts were IAS cadre posts.

The Tribunal found OA No. 367/2023 maintainable, holding that the applicants were "aggrieved persons" as the 1st applicant association espoused the common grievance of its members, and the 2nd applicant had an individual grievance regarding the Excise Commissioner post.

This aligned with *Duryodhan Sahu & Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra & Ors.* [(1998) 7 SCC 273] and *Union of India & Ors. v. All India Naval Clerks Association & Anr.* [WPC No. 21384 of 2007], which permit associations to file applications if at least one affected person joins.

Regarding the scope of Rule 7 of the IAS (Cadre) Rules, 2014, the Tribunal rejected the State's narrow interpretation that CSB recommendations were only required for premature transfers.

The Tribunal reasoned that the phrase "all appointments of cadre officers" in Rule 7(1) and the functions outlined in the Schedule to the Rules, including "all appointments of cadre officers," clearly covered all transfers and postings, even upon completion of the minimum tenure.

It distinguished *Prafulla Kumar Swain* as it dealt with recruitment versus initial appointment, not transfers within a cadre.

The Tribunal noted the State's own practice after its interim order demonstrated that some transfers after minimum tenure were placed before the CSB, undermining their contention.

The Tribunal determined that the post of Excise Commissioner was an IAS cadre post.

It found no evidence that IPS officers held this position prior to 2016 and noted its absence from the IPS cadre list (Annexure A28), concluding that filling it with an IPS officer violated IAS (Cadre) Rules.

Similarly, the Tribunal concluded that redesignating posts like Director/Director General of KILA and Director General of IMG to accommodate non-IAS officers (Respondents 9 and 10) was a "colourable and malicious exercise of executive functions" intended to circumvent the IAS (Cadre) Rules.

It noted that the original cadre posts remained vacant while these ineligible individuals occupied functionally equivalent positions for extended periods.

The Tribunal referenced the High Court's judgment in *WP(C) No. 37185 of 2023* which had already removed Respondent 9 from service.

In OA No. 418 of 2025, the Tribunal set aside Annexure A34, which transferred the applicant, on two grounds.

Firstly, it lacked prior CSB recommendation, violating the Tribunal's interpretation of Rule 7.

Secondly, the order was issued while an interim stay on the applicant's transfer (Annexure A10) was in effect, and its timing (effective the day after the Tribunal's next hearing) suggested an attempt to "overreach the Tribunal’s order of stay."

Finally, while the Tribunal found prima facie materials existed to initiate contempt proceedings for violations of its interim orders, it opted not to proceed, expressing a belief that respondents would adhere to the rules in the future.

It was declared that all appointments, transfers, and postings of IAS officers in Kerala, irrespective of tenure completion, must be made in consultation with the Civil Services Board, following Rule 7 and the relevant provisions of the IAS (Cadre) Rules, 2014.

The interim order in OA No. 367 of 2023 dated 13.11.2023 was confirmed with the clarification that "appointment" in Rule 7 includes all transfers and postings.

It was declared that posts notified as cadre posts under Annexure A4 must be filled solely by IAS cadre officers, prohibiting non-IAS or retired IAS officers from occupying them.

Specifically, the posts of Excise Commissioner, Director KILA, and Director General IMG were declared IAS cadre posts.

Any non-IAS/retired IAS officers currently holding these positions were ordered to be removed forthwith, leaving the posts vacant, though decisions made by them to date were saved.

Any such filling of IAS cadre posts by redesignation, renaming, or other methods to keep the cadre post vacant was deemed an irregular and colourable exercise of executive functions.

The State Government was directed to regularly submit quarterly reports as per Rule 7(3) of Annexure A2(a), and the Union Government was obligated to ensure such submissions.

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

The applicant was to continue in his present post.

The State Government was permitted to issue new transfer orders for the applicant, strictly adhering to rules and regulations, as he had completed his minimum tenure.

The Contempt Petitions Nos. 9 of 2025 and 41 of 2025 were closed, conditional on future adherence to rules and orders, with a warning against future violations.

No costs were awarded.