The Uttarakhand High Court has issued notices to the Union and the state governments asking them to file counter affidavits within three weeks in a public interest litigation (PIL), alleging violation of Supreme Court directions and cadre rules in bureaucratic transfers in the state.
A bench of Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Subhash Upadhyay heard the petition on Monday. Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), the Uttarakhand Chief Secretary and the principal secretaries of the personnel, home and forest departments have been named as respondents in the case.
The petition alleges that the transfers and postings of All India Services officers in the state have been carried out in violation of the apex court’s guidelines for over 12 years.
The petition also alleges that the state govt has failed to exercise its rights under the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968, to seek details of movable and immovable assets from IAS, IPS and IFoS officers.
The petition is virtually based on the Supreme Court’s October 31, 2013 judgment, directing the respective govts to establish Civil Services Boards to advise on transfers and postings and provide tenure stability to civil servants.
The court was told that the DoPT had amended the IAS, IPS and IFoS cadre rules on January 28, 2014, providing for a minimum two-year tenure for cadre posts and Civil Services Boards to recommend appointments and transfers before completion of the prescribed tenure.
The petitioner alleged that most of the transfers of IAS, IPS and IFoS officers were made without the board’s recommendation, although Uttarakhand constituted Civil Services Boards in 2014.
The plea alleges that several IAS transfers were carried out on oral directions from “higher levels”, followed by ex post facto approval from the Chief Minister.
The petition says a Civil Services Board was proposed for IPS officers too, but the proposal was deferred. The home department subsequently routed postings through the Police Establishment Board, it alleges.
The petition says proposals for the IFoS were placed before the board, but reasons for transfers were generally not recorded. The petition alleges that the board mechanically approved transfer lists that had been decided.
Get Latest Updates