IAS Officer Postings Mandate Civil Services Board Recommendation, Upholding Cadre Rules.

The first applicant, the Kerala IAS Association, along with two of its members (applicants 2 and 3), approached the Central Administrative Tribunal alleging violations of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954, and its 2014 Amendment.

They contended that the State of Kerala frequently transferred IAS officers without recommendations from the Civil Services Board (CSB), which was constituted by Annexure A3, despite the mandate from the Supreme Court in *T.S.R. Subramanian & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.* [(2013) 15 SCC 732].

The applicants further alleged that several cadre posts meant for IAS officers were filled by non-IAS personnel or retired IAS officers (respondents 8, 9, and 10), citing the appointments of an IPS officer as Excise Commissioner (respondent 8), a private individual as Director of KILA (respondent 9), and a retired IAS officer as Director, IMG (respondent 10).

Interim relief was granted on November 13, 2023, directing the State not to issue appointment or transfer orders for IAS cadre posts without CSB recommendations.

Subsequently, applicant 2 challenged his transfer and posting as Chairman and Managing Director of Kerala Transport Development Finance Corporation (KTDFC) without CSB consultation in OA No. 418 of 2025, leading to a stay of the orders.

Following this, the State issued another order (Annexure A34) transferring him to Principal Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, effective September 17, 2025, while the stay was still in effect.

Contempt petitions were also filed against the Chief Secretary for alleged violations of the interim order.

1. Whether OA No. 367/2023 is maintainable when filed by an association and individual members alleging general grievances concerning IAS cadre management?

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

3. Whether the interim order granted in OA No. 367 of 2023 dated November 13, 2023, is liable to 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?

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 of post and/or creation of new posts is a colourable exercise of jurisdiction and thus violative of 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 liable to be declared void and non est on the grounds of lack of CSB 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 No. 418 of 2025?

8. Whether the respondents in CP(C) No. 9 of 2025 and CP(C) No. 41 of 2025 have prima facie committed contempt of Tribunal and are liable to be proceeded against?

The court primarily applied the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, specifically Sections 19 and 20, to determine the maintainability of applications by "aggrieved persons" or associations.

It drew guidance from *Gopabandhu Biswal v. Krishna Chandra Mohanty & Ors.* [(1998) 4 SCC 447] and *Dr. Duryodhan Sahu & Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra & Ors.* [(1998) 7 SCC 273] regarding maintainability.

It also applied the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954, as amended in 2014, focusing on Rule 7 concerning "Postings" and the role of the Civil Services Board (CSB) for "all appointments of cadre officers" and transfers.

The judgment in *T.S.R. Subramanian & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.* [(2013) 15 SCC 732], which mandated the constitution of CSBs for tenure protection and transparent transfers, formed the bedrock of the rules' interpretation.

Additionally, the Abkari Act and the IPS (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regulations, 1955, were considered in relation to the Excise Commissioner post.

The Tribunal found OA No. 367/2023 maintainable, as the applicants, including the association and individual members, articulated a common cause and specific grievances, which is permissible under the Administrative Tribunals Act, especially when at least one affected person joins the application, aligning with the principles laid down in *Duryodhan Sahu*'s case.

The court determined that Rule 7(1) of the IAS (Cadre) Rules, 2014, requiring CSB recommendations for "all appointments of cadre officers," encompasses all transfers and postings, not just initial appointments or premature transfers before minimum tenure.

This interpretation is supported by a holistic reading of Rule 7 and the Government Order (Annexure A3) constituting the CSB, and the subsequent practice where the CSB considered various types of transfers.

The previous Supreme Court distinction in *Prafulla Kumar Swain* between "recruitment" and "appointment" was held irrelevant to the scope of "appointment" in Rule 7(1).

Regarding the post of Excise Commissioner, the Tribunal concluded it is an IAS cadre post, noting its inclusion in IAS cadre lists (Annexures A4 and A58) and its absence from the IPS cadre list (Annexure A28).

The State's argument that an IPS officer is better suited for the role due to investigative powers was rejected, as the Excise Commissioner also performs administrative and revenue collection functions, and the Abkari Act allows for the withdrawal of Abkari powers.

The appointments of respondents 9 and 10 to Director, KILA, and Director General, IMG, respectively, were deemed colourable and violative of IAS (Cadre) Rules.

The re-designation or creation of parallel posts to accommodate non-IAS officers while keeping the actual IAS cadre posts vacant was found to be a manipulation of the rules.

For respondent 9, the High Court had already nullified his appointment, reinforcing the Tribunal's view.

This practice weakens the All India Service cadre structure and acts as a "fraud on the All India Service Act."

In OA No. 418 of 2025, the Tribunal set aside Annexure A34, which transferred the applicant as Principal Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, because it was issued without prior CSB consideration, as mandated by the clarification on Rule 7.

The Tribunal also pointed out the impropriety of issuing Annexure A34 while an interim stay on Annexure A10 was in force, observing it as an attempt to overreach the Tribunal's order, despite the effective date being post-hearing.

The contempt petitions were considered but not proceeded with, acknowledging that the legal issues regarding CSB's role were only now settled, and expressing a belief that respondents would adhere to the rules in the future.

It confirmed the interim order dated November 13, 2023, in OA No. 367 of 2023, modifying it to clarify that all appointments, transfers, and postings of IAS officers in Kerala, irrespective of tenure completion, must be done in consultation with the Civil Services Board and according to Rule 7 of the IAS (Cadre) Rules, 2014 and its Schedule.

It is declared that the posts of Excise Commissioner, Director Kerala Institute of Local Administration (KILA), and Director General, Institute of Management in Government (IMG) are IAS cadre posts.

These posts can only be filled by IAS officers.

If any of these posts are currently held by non-IAS or retired IAS officers, those individuals shall be removed forthwith, and alternate arrangements for charge should be made while keeping the posts vacant.

Any such filling of cadre posts by non-IAS officers through redesignation or creation of parallel posts is deemed an irregular and colourable exercise of executive functions.

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

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

The applicant shall continue in his current post.

However, since the applicant has completed his minimum tenure, the State Government is free to issue appropriate transfer orders in strict compliance with applicable Rules, Regulations, and law.

The Contempt Petitions (Nos. 9 of 2025 and 41 of 2025) are closed, with a warning against future violations of orders.

The Original Applications are allowed in part.