Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Dr B Ashok Ias vs A Jayathilak Ias, Chief Secretary To ... on 6 March, 2026
1 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH, ERNAKULAM Original Application No. 180/00367/2023 Contempt Petition No. 180/00009/2025 and Contempt Petition No. 180/00041/2025 in Original Application No. 180/00367/2023 Original Application No. 180/00418/2025 Friday, this the 6th day of March, 2026 CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sunil Thomas, Member (J) Hon'ble Ms. V. Rama Mathew, Member (A)
1. Original Application No. 180/00367/2023 -
1. Kerala IAS Association, (Registration No. TVM/TC/1430/2013), represented by it's Secretary, M. G. Rajamanickam, IAS, S/o. Late Murugasamy, aged 43 year, residing at 3, Belhaven Gardens, Kowdiar, Thiruvananthapuram - 695003, now working as Principal Director, Local Self Government Department, Government Secretariat, Government of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram - 695001.
2. Dr. B. Ashok IAS, S/o. B. Balasundaram, aged 50 years, residing at D22, Pilla Veedu Nagar, Kesavadasapuram, Thiruvananthapuram -
695004, now working as Agricultural Production Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government, Government Secretariat, Government of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram - 695001.
3. Priyanka G, IAS, W/o. Nitish Sinha, aged 33 years, residing at 137 B, Samudrika, Chadiyara Road, Poojappura, Thiruvananthapuram
- 695012 and now working as Director, Women and Child Department, Government Secretariat, Government of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram - 695001. ..... Applicants Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 2 (By Advocates: Mrs. Girija K. Gopal and Ms. K.N. Vigy) Versus
1. Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to Government, Department of Personnel and Training, Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India, North Block, New Delhi-110001.
2. State of Kerala represented by it's Chief Secretary, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram-695001.
3. Chief Secretary to Government of Kerala, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram -695001.
4. Additional Chief Secretary to Government Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Kerala, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram -695001.
5. Member Secretary(Ex-officio) Civil Services Board, Government of Kerala (Additional Chief Secretary, P&ARD Department), Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram -695001.
6. Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Local Self Government Department, Government of Kerala, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram -695001.
7. Additional Chief Secretary to Government General Administration (AIS-C) Department, Government of Kerala, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram -695001.
8. Mahipal Yadav, IPS Additional Director General of Police, now working as Excise Commissioner, Excise Headquarters, Nandavanam, Thiruvananthapuram-695011.
9. Joy Elamon, Director General, Kerala Institute of Local Administration, Mulangunnathukavu, (P.O), Thrissur. 680581.
Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 3
10. K. Jayakumar, IAS (Retd.) Director, Institute of Management in Government, Law College Road, Palayam, Vikas Bhavan(P.O), Thiruvananthapuram-695033. ..... Respondents [(By Advocates : Mr. Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil, Sr. PC (R1), Mr. Gopalakrishnan Kurup K., Advocate General assisted by Mr. Baijuraj G., Sr. GP, Mr. Bijoy Chandran, Sr. GP and Ms. Vinitha B., Sr. GP (R2, 3, 4, 5, 6 &7) and Mr. V.A. Muhammed & Mr. Manzoor Ali K.A. (R9)]
2. Contempt Petition No. 180/00009/2025 in Original Application No. 180/00367/2023 -
Dr. B. Ashok IAS, S/o. B. Balasundaram, aged 51 years, residing at D22, Pilla Veedu Nagar, Kesavadasapuram, Thiruvananthapuram -695004, working as Principal Secretary to Government (Agriculture) and Agricultural Production Commissioner, Government Secretariat, Government of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram - 695001. ..... Petitioner (By Advocates: Mrs. Girija K. Gopal and Ms. K.N. Vigy) Versus
1. Sarada Muraleedharan, IAS, (age and father's name not known to the petitioner), Chief Secretary to Government of Kerala, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram-695001.
2. Sarada Muraleedharan, IAS, (age and father's name not known to the petitioner), Chief Secretary to Government of Kerala, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram-695001. ..... Respondents [(By Advocates : Mr. Gopalakrishnan Kurup K., Advocate General assisted by Mr. Bijoy Chandran, Sr. GP Mr. Baijuraj G., Sr. GP and Ms. Vinitha B., Sr. GP (R1&2)] Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 4
3. Contempt Petition No. 180/00041/2025 in Original Application No. 180/00367/2023 -
Dr. B. Ashok IAS, S/o. B. Balasundaram, aged 52 years, residing at D20, Krishna Preeti, Pilla Veedu Nagar, Kesavadasapuram, Thiruvananthapuram -695004, working as Principal Secretary to Government (Agriculture) and Agricultural Production Commissioner, Government Secretariat, Government of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram - 695001, now under orders of deputation as Chairman and Managing Director, Kerala Transport Development Finance Corporation, Trans Towers, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 0014. ..... Petitioner (By Advocates: Mrs. Girija K. Gopal and Ms. K.N. Vigy) Versus
1. A. Jayathilak, IAS, Chief Secretary to Government of Kerala, (State of Kerala), Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram-695001.
2. A. Jayathilak, IAS, Chief Secretary to Government of Kerala, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram-695001. ..... Respondents [(By Advocates : Mr. Gopalakrishnan Kurup K., Advocate General assisted by Mr. Bijoy Chandran, Sr. GP Mr. Baijuraj G., Sr. GP and Ms. Vinitha B., Sr. GP (R1&2)]
4. Original Application No. 180/00418/2025 -
Dr. B. Ashok, IAS S/o B.Balasundaram, aged 52 years, residing at D20, "Krishna Preeti", Pilla Veedu Nagar, Kesavadasapuram, Thiruvananthapuram-695004, Working as Principal Secretary to Government (Agriculture) and Agricultural Production Commissioner, Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 5 Government Secretariat, Government of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram -695001.
Now under orders of deputation as Chairman and Managing Director, Kerala Transport Development Finance Corporation, Trans Towers, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram-695 0014. ..... Applicant (By Advocates: Mrs. Girija K. Gopal, Ms. K.N. Vigy and Ms. Soory Maria Kurian) Versus
1. Union of India, Represented by Secretary to Government, Department of Personnel and Training, Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India, North Block, New Delhi-110001
2. State of Kerala, represented by its Chief Secretary, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram -695001.
3. Chief Secretary to Government of Kerala, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram -695001.
4. General Administration (AIS) Department, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Government of Kerala, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram -695001.
5. Department of Transport, Represented by its Special Secretary to Government, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram-695001.
Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 6
6. Kerala Transport Development Finance Corporation, Represented by its Chairman and Managing Director, 7th Floor, Trans Towers, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram-695014.
7. Smt. Tinku Biswal, IAS, Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram-695001. ..... Respondents [(By Advocates : Mr. N. Anilkumar, Sr. PC (R1), Mr. Gopalakrishnan Kurup K., Advocate General assisted by Ms. Vinitha B., Sr. GP & Mr. Bijoy Chandran, Sr. GP (R2, 3, 4 & 5) and Mr. Deepu Thankan, Ms. Ummul Fida, Ms. Lakshmi Sreedhar, Ms. Cindia S., Ms. Pooja Chandran and Ms. Gayathri G.(R6)] These Original Applications and Contempt Petitions having been heard on 03.12.2025, the Tribunal on 06.03.2026 delivered the following:
Common O R D E R Per: Justice Sunil Thomas, Judicial Member -
OA No. 180/367/2023 -
The first applicant is a registered service association of the IAS Officers' in Kerala cadre represented by its Secretary. The Secretary is stated to be authorized to sue on behalf of the association before the Central Administrative Tribunal by virtue of Annexure A1. Applicants 2 and 3 are two members of the association who claim that they are Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 7 aggrieved individuals and also espouse the cause of the 1st applicant association.
2. They have approached this Tribunal alleging violations of provisions of Annexure A2 Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 and Annexure A2(a) IAS (Cadre) Amendment Rules, 2014, indiscreet transfers and postings of IAS officers, and postings of non-IAS officers in the cadre posts. According to Rule 7(1) and (5) of Annexure A2(a), all appointments and transfers of cadre officers shall be on the recommendations of Civil Services Board constituted under the Rules.
Rule 7(3) also stipulates that a cadre officer appointed to a cadre post shall hold the office for at least two years, unless in the meanwhile, he/she has been promoted, retired or sent on deputation outside the State or training exceeding two months. Transfers of such officers before the minimum specified period can only be on the basis of recommendations of the Civil Services Board (CSB for short).
3. The applicants alleged that there have been frequent transfers of IAS officers in Kerala without recommendation of the CSB, though such a Board was constituted by Annexure A3. It was also stated that though Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 8 sufficient number of IAS officers were available in Kerala cadre for being appointed to cadre posts, some of such posts were filled up by non-IAS persons or retired IAS officers, without recommendation of the CSB and any justifiable public interest. They were so appointed solely on political considerations, it was alleged. Such transfers were without following the procedure contemplated in Annexure A2(a), which was introduced pursuant to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.S.R. Subramanian & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [(2013) 15 SCC 732]. Such actions smack malafides, both legal and factual and an arbitrary exercise of power for extraneous considerations, it was alleged.
4. To avoid indiscriminate transfer of civil servants under political compulsions, T.S.R. Subramanian's case (supra) has rendered certain guidelines. Accordingly, DoP&T had issued Annexure A2(a) notification dated 28.1.2014 and consequently, amendment was effected as IAS (Cadre) Rules, 2014. By virtue of said amendment, cadre officers of All India Service are to hold the post at least for two years, unless promoted, retired or sent on deputation outside the State or on training beyond two months.
5. It was alleged in the Original Application that after two initial Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 9 meetings of the Civil Services Board in 2014 and 2015, the 2nd respondent State willfully dismantled the convening of CSB. It was not convened thereafter. Several postings and transfers of the cadre officers were done without following the due procedure and without due recommendation of the CSB and in clear violation of the tenure norms and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. When this was repeated, representation was submitted by the association, alleging serious violations of cadre Rules and other Rules regarding the posting of non-IAS officers to IAS cadre or retired or overaged former IAS officers posted to en-cadre post of Indian Administrative Service. The representation was not responded.
6. Annexure A4 notification issued by the DoP&T dated 18.2.2013 show the posts borne on and composition of Indian Administrative Service Kerala Cadre. Total en-cadred post as on 18.2.2013 was 126 to be manned by IAS officers of Kerala cadre. Three specific instances of en- cadre post being filled up by non-IAS officers or retired IAS officers were projected by the applicants, in the cases of respondents Nos. 8, 9 and 10. It was stated that the 8th respondent was an IPS officer who was appointed by Annexure A6 order dated 6.6.2023 to the post of Excise Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 10 Commissioner, which according to the applicants is an en-cadre post. The 9th respondent who was a private individual was appointed as the Director of Kerala Institute of Local Administration (KILA) by Annexure A7 GO dated 5.5.2017. His term was extended by Annexure A8 Government Order. The 10th respondent was stated to be a 72 year old retired IAS officer, who was appointed on reappointment against IAS en-cadre post of Director General, Institute of Management in Government by rechristening the name of the post as Director, IMG.
7. Raising the above grievances, 1st applicant association addressed Annexure A10 representation dated 16.8.2022 to the Government. Since there was no response, Annexure A11 representation was submitted, by the 2nd applicant and 3rd applicant, highlighting the illegalities in appointment of respondents Nos. 8 to 10. In the said representation the 2nd applicant expressed his willingness and suitability to be appointed as Excise Commissioner. To substantiate that several orders of transfer and posting were issued to IAS officers during the period from 7.7.2021 to 22.5.2023, without convening the CSB, the applicants relied on Annexures A5 to A9 and A12 to A16, transfer orders. According to the applicants, after Annexure A3, the Government was to follow the tenure Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 11 policy and that before making any recommendations, was bound to follow the procedure as enumerated in the 2014 Amendment Rules. Aggrieved by the alleged violation of the IAS (Cadre) Rules,2014, the applicants have approached this Tribunal seeking essentially the following main reliefs:
"(1) Declare that any appointment and transfer to IAS cadre posts made by the State Government in defiance of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the resultant amendment in the IAS (Cadre) Rules and the order of constitution of CSB are void ab initio. (2) declare that posts notified by the Union Government as belonging to IAS Kerala Cadre shall be filled up only by serving IAS officers and to issue a direction to the 2nd respondent not to appoint or post any non IAS cadre officer to any of the posts notified by the Union Government for IAS Kerala cadre.
(3) call for the records leading to Annexures A6 to A9 and to set aside the same as being issued without jurisdiction by incompetent authorities in defiance of the Apex Court judgment in T.S.R. Subramanian's case and in violation of Annexure A2 IAS (Cadre) Rules and IAS (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regulations. (4) declare that appointments of respondents 8 to 10 as per annexures A6 to A9 are illegal and void ab initio and further to direct the 2nd respondent to recover and forfeit all consequential benefits granted to them on the basis of the illegal appointments given to them as per Annexures A6 to A9.
(5) declare that re-designation of posts borne on the Indian Administrative Service, Kerala cadre cannot be done unilaterally by the State Government.
(6) declare that orders of transfer of IAS officers like Annexures A12 to A16 are issued without jurisdiction and further to direct respondents 2 to 7 not to issue orders of appointment, transfers and postings of IAS officers without recommendations from the Civil Services Board which shall follow the due procedure as contemplated in the IAS (Cadre) Rules and IAS (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regulations.
Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30'
12
(7) Declare that the Civil Services Board shall not issue orders of
transfers and postings of IAS officers without adhering to the minimum tenure policy fixed as per IAS (Cadre) Rules and to issue a direction requiring respondents 2 to 5 to abide by the minimum tenure policy fixed as per IAS (Cadre) Rules.
(8) Issue a direction to respondents 2 to 5 to convene meetings of the Civil Services Board at required intervals and to diligently scrutinize the appointments and transfers in respect of IAS cadre officers as stipulated in the IAS (Cadre) Rules, Fixation of Cadre Strength Regulations and other relevant Regulations.
(9) Issue a direction to the first respondent, the Union of India, to insist on submission of quarterly reports by the Member Secretary of CSB as mandated under the IAS Cadre Rules.
(10) direct the 2nd respondent to consider representations submitted by applicants 1 and 2 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a time frame that may be fixed by this Hon'ble Tribunal."
8. Along with Original Application, the applicants sought for an interim order directing the 2nd respondent not to issue orders of appointment, transfer and postings in respect of IAS cadre officers and equivalent posts, without convening of and recommendations by the Civil Services Board.
9. Respondents appeared and filed objection to the interim application. After hearing both sides in extenso, by an interim order of this Tribunal dated 13.11.2023 an interim relief was granted to the applicants directing the 2nd respondent State of Kerala not to issue orders of appointment, Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 13 transfer and posting in respect of IAS cadre posts without convening of and recommendations of the Civil Services Board wherever Annexures A2 and A2(a) applies. This interim order is continuing even now.
10. Respondents appeared and filed separate reply statements. Notices were served on private respondents Nos. 8, 9 and 10 also.
11. The 1st respondent did not file a separate reply statement, but filed a counsel statement. It was contended that no relief was sought against the 1st respondent. It was stated that they are ready to follow any order passed by the competent authority. The 1st respondent referred to Rule 9 of IAS (Cadre) Rules, 1954 and also the judgment passed in T.S.R. Subramanian's case which was accepted and DoP&T amended Rule 7 of IAS (Cadre) Rules, 1954. The various Rules were quoted for reference.
12. Respondents Nos. 2 to 7 had filed a separate reply statement. It was contended that IAS (Cadre) Rules, 1954 was amended by Annexure A2(a) in 2014, pursuant to T.S.R. Subramanian's case. It was again amended in 2016. It was contended that though Annexure A2(a) provides that all appointments of cadre officers shall be made on recommendation of CSB, it does not mean that all transfer and postings of IAS officers Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 14 shall be only on recommendation of the CSB. It was contended that Annexure A2 only provided for recommendation of CSB in the appointment to the cadre. It was stated that recommendations of CSB was required only in any one of the circumstances mentioned in Rule 7(1) and 7(5) of IAS (Cadre) Rules, 2014 and not required for all transfer and postings. The State Government had constituted CSB and whenever required, the State will continue to convene it. Government also ensured that proposals for transfer of officers before completion of minimum tenure are placed before the Civil Services Board. Regarding the minimum tenure of IAS officers, it was stated that State Government was trying to ensure minimum tenure to the officers. However, IAS officers posted to a particular post shall normally have maximum tenure unless required in exigencies of administration. IAS Cadre Strength Regulation, 1955 was amended several times increasing the cadre strength and modifying the composition of IAS Kerala (Cadre) officers. By amendment dated 18.2.2013 total authorized strength of IAS Officers in Kerala cadre was fixed at 231.
13. It was stated that 9 different posts of Commissioners were Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 15 specifically included in IAS Cadre Strength Regulations, 1955, as amended in 2013 for Kerala cadre. In addition to that, 5 posts of Commissioners are also included in the IAS cadre strength for Kerala cadre. These 5 Commissioners posts in IAS Cadre Strength Regulations, 1955 as amended in 2013 are to be filled up by posting IAS officers in the grade of Secretary. The 5 cadre posts of Commissioners in IAS Kerala Cadre can be operated in any of the Government Departments having scope for posting a Commissioner. Regarding the Commissioner of Excise, it was stated that the post of Commissioner of Excise was not specifically included in IAS Cadre Strength Regulations as notified in Annexure A4. Section 4 of Abkari Act provided that the Government may appoint Commissioner of Excise. He is an Abkari officer within the meaning of Section 3(2) of Abkari Act. The functions of Excise Department predominantly involve prevention, detection and investigation of serious offences of heinous nature. Therefore, the appointment of IPS officers as Commissioner of Excise is in the fitness of things. Ever since the appointment of Shri Rishiraj Singh, IPS as Commissioner of Excise in 2016, the post is being held by officers from the IPS cadre. Hence, there is no illegality in the appointment of 8th Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 16 respondent as Commissioner of Excise.
14. Regarding the post of Director General of Kerala Institute of Local Administration (KILA), it was stated that the KILA was an autonomous institution under the Government of Kerala. The post of Director, KILA is included in IAS Cadre Strength Regulations as notified in Annexure A4. The appointment of the 9th respondent was against the post of Director General, KILA which is not a cadre post for IAS officers. Hence, there is no merit in the challenge against the appointment of the 9th respondent as Director General, KILA.
15. Regarding the post of Director, Institute of Management in Government (IMG), it was stated that the post of Director General of IMG was the post included in IAS Cadre Strength Regulations as notified in Annexure A4. The State Government, by Annexure A9 GO created a post of Director, IMG and by the same order, the 10th respondent who was former Chief Secretary was appointed in the newly created post. Hence, the appointment of 10th respondent as Director, IMG is legal and valid. It was further stated that non-cadre IAS officer is not holding the cadre posts of Director General, IMG as alleged by the applicants and the Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 17 said post is kept vacant.
16. It was stated several posts of IAS officers were vacant and hence several officers were given additional charge. The available IAS officers in Kerala cadre are insufficient to fill the posts of Principal Secretary grade and Secretary grade posts in the IAS Kerala cadre. Most of the Government Secretaries are holding additional charges of one or more departments/posts.
17. Regarding the maintainability of the Original Application, it was contended that Section 2(b) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 defines application to mean an application made under Section 19 of the Act. As per Section 19 of the Act, 'a person' aggrieved by any order pertaining to any subject matter within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal may make an application to the Tribunal for the redressal of his grievance. Section 20 of the Act provides that the Tribunal shall not ordinarily admit an application, unless it is satisfied that the applicant had availed of all the remedies available 'to him' under the relevant Service Rules. As per Section 19 of the Act, 'a person aggrieved' can approach the Tribunal only for redressal of "his" grievance. Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 18
18. Based on these provisions, it was contended that the above wordings cumulatively indicated that only an individual applicant can approach a Tribunal to redress his grievance. Grievance of third parties cannot be raised, and hence, the Original Application itself was not sustainable. Transfer and posting of IAS officers which are alleged against the Rules could be impugned only by the officers transferred, if he or she has a grievance. The validity of such orders may not be subject to judicial scrutiny at the instance of third parties. Concept of public interest litigation is alien to service law, it was contended.
19. It was stated that Rule 4(5)(b) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 enabled the Tribunal to grant permission to an association to file a single application, representing the persons desirous to join in a single application, provided that at least one affected person joins such an application. The 2nd and 3rd applicants claim that they espouse the same cause of action as that of the 1st applicant association. They have no case that they are in any manner directly affected by the transfer orders allegedly issued in violation of the IAS (Cadre) Rules, 1954. The rights of the 2nd and 3rd applicants as IAS Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 19 officers are not affected by any of the orders annexed to the Original Application.
20. It was specifically contended that non-IAS officers or retired IAS officers were not posted against the posts notified for IAS officers. Respondents 8 to 10 of the Original Application were not occupying the posts notified for serving IAS officers. The State Government has not disbanded the Civil Services Board as alleged. The transfer of various IAS officers was necessitated on variety of reasons including return of officers from central deputation, rejoining after long leave, study leave etc. Indiscriminate transfer and posting orders of IAS officers were not issued as alleged by the applicants.
21. A detailed rejoinder was filed by the applicants traversing the allegations made in the reply statement and producing Annexures A19 to A30 documents.
22. Respondents Nos. 2 to 7 had filed an additional reply statement in answer to the rejoinder filed by the applicants therein. It was contended that various contentions taken by the applicants in relation to the interpretation of Rule 7 of IAS (Cadre) Rules, 1954 was contrary to Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 20 statutory framework and binding precedents. The contention that the word "appointment" in Rule 7(1) of the IAS (Cadre) Rules, 1954 covers every posting or transfer is not sustainable in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Prafulla Kumar Swain v. Prakash Chandra Misra [1993 Supp (3) SCC 181]. In that the Supreme Court clearly distinguished between the terms "recruitment" and "appointment".
23. It was further contended that the reliance based on the decision in T.S.R. Subramanian's case (supra) was misconceived. The judgment only directed the constitution of the Civil Services Board to ensure a measure of tenure protection and transparency. It did not displace the Government's ultimate authority to order transfer. DoP&T Office Memorandum dated 16.6.2014 made it expressly clear that CSB was intended only to consider premature transfers before the completion of minimum tenure and that its role was purely recommendatory. The Government was competent to accept, modify or reject recommendations of CSB by recording the reasons. Pursuant to T.S.R. Subramanian's case (supra), GO(MS) No. 107/2014/GAD dated 5.5.2014 was issued constituting the Civil Services Board to consider premature transfer of Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 21 officers. Ever since the interim order in the present Original Application no officer has been transferred prematurely without recommendation of the CSB. Relying on Union of India v. S.L. Abbas [(1993) 4 SCC 357] and Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar [1991 Supp (2) SCC 659], it was contended that Supreme Court has consistently held that transfer was an incident of service and no officer had a vested right to a particular post and judicial review was limited to cases of mala fides or violation of statutory Rules.
24. It was stated that the Original Application was fundamentally defective and not maintainable. Other than a bare one line assertion that the 2nd and 3rd applicants were personally aggrieved, the OA and the rejoinder did not plead how they were entitled to claim any specific right to any particular post, nor did they disclose any order adversely affecting their service rights. None of the transfer orders have been challenged, since they did not adversely affect the interest of applicants Nos. 2 and 3. They have also sought for a general direction of a sweeping nature without demonstrating infringement of any personal right. Relying on Dr. Duryodhan Sahu v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra [(1998) 7 SCC 273], it was contended that Administrative Tribunals cannot entertain matters in the Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 22 nature of public interest litigation.
25. An additional rejoinder was filed by the applicants in answer to the additional reply statement filed by respondents Nos. 2 to 7 along with Annexures A31 to A38 documents. Additional documents Nos. A39 to A54 and additional documents A55 to A61 were brought on record by orders in MA No. 995 of 2025 and MA No. 1084 of 2025.
26. Among the private respondents, only 9th respondent appeared and filed reply statement. He substantially supported the contentions of respondents Nos. 2 to 7 and claimed that he was appointed as Director of KILA for a period of 3 years. As per GO(Ms) No. 10/2020/LSGD dated 6.1.2020 the post of Director, KILA was redesignated as Director General and thereafter his period was further extended for 2 years as per GO(Rt) No. 909/2020/LSGD dated 18.5.2020 and for another period of one year each as per GO(Rt) No. 1243/2022 dated 18.5.2022 and thereafter by GO(Rt) No. 1045/20223/LSGD dated 15.5.2023.
CP(C) No. 180/9/2025 in OA No. 180/367/2023 -
Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 23
27. This Contempt Petition is filed by the 2nd applicant alleging that the applicant was ordered to be prematurely transferred and posted as the Local Self Government Reforms Commission without recommendation or in consultation with the Civil Services Board and hence, the respondent Chief Secretary on behalf of the Government has violated the interim order of this Tribunal in OA No. 367 of 2023 and thus liable for appropriate action.
28. A counter affidavit was filed by the respondent Chief Secretary contending that the decision was taken with good intention pursuant to the unanimous decision of the Council of Ministers. Annexure P2 was only a rearrangement of post held by him by giving additional charge to substantive post. Petitioner was holding the same post. There was no violation of any the said Rules, it was contended. CP(C) No. 180/41/2025 in OA No. 180/367/2023 -
29. This Contempt Petition was also filed by the 2nd applicant alleging violation of the interim order passed by this Tribunal. It was alleged that pending the Original Application, by Annexure P6 order dated 30.8.2025 applicant was relieved from the post of Agriculture Production Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 24 Commissioner and additional charge of Principal Secretary, Agriculture Department and placed at the disposal of the Transport Department for being appointed as the Chairman and Managing Director of Kerala Transport Development Finance Corporation. By Annexure P7 GO(Rt) No. 384/2025/TRANS dated 1.9.2025 he was posted as Chairman and Managing Director, KTDFC. It was contended that it was without consultation with and recommendation of the Civil Services Board and thus contravened the interim order of this Tribunal.
30. When both the Contempt Petitions were taken up, notices were issued to the respondents and thereafter posted along with the Original Application No. 367 of 2023 and connected matters for hearing. In the Original Applications, impugned orders were stayed. Hence, virtually, the petitioner in the Contempt Petition is continuing in the same post. OA No. 418 of 2025 -
31. The applicant herein is the second applicant in OA No. 367 of 2023 and presently functioning as the Agricultural Production Commissioner and Principal Secretary, Agriculture Department of Government of Kerala. The Original Application was filed challenging Annexures A10, Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 25 A19 and A23 orders by which he was displaced from that post and appointed as the Chairman and Managing Director of Kerala Transport Development Finance Corporation (KTDFC in short).
32. While, the applicant was officiating as the Principal Secretary to Agriculture Department, by Annexure A2 order dated 7.2.2023 he was transferred and posted as the Agricultural Production Commissioner along with the additional charge of the Principal Secretary to Government of Kerala, Agriculture Department. While so, by Annexure A4 order dated 9.1.2025 the applicant was placed under disposal of Department of Local Self Government to be appointed as the Local Self Government Reforms Commission by equating the Commission with that of the cadre post of Principal Secretary to Government in the super time scale. The full additional charge of the post of Agriculture Production Commissioner and Principal Secretary (Agriculture) was given to another officer by Annexure A5 order. Contending that Annexure A4 was in violation of All India Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954, consolidated deputation guidelines for All India Services and All India Services (Pay) Rules, 2016, the applicant moved this Tribunal by filing OA No. 19 of 2025. The applicant also challenged the communication dated 16.1.2025 Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 26 issued by the 2nd respondent by which his representation against Annexure A4 was rejected. At the time of admission, after hearing both sides, the Tribunal granted an order of status quo and clarified that he will continue to hold the post of Principal Secretary (Agriculture) and Agricultural Production Commissioner. The interim order was extended from time to time. The Original Application was allowed by this Tribunal by Annexure A6 order dated 3.6.2025 holding that the Local Self Government Commission falls within the authorities mentioned in Rule 6(2)(ii) and not within Rule 6(2)(i) of the IAS (Cadre) Rules and the issuance of Annexure A4 order dated 9.1.2025 without the consent of the applicant was bad and unsustainable. It was also held that the deputation of applicant as Local Self Government Reforms Commission was in violation of Rule 12(1) of IAS Pay Rules since the declaration of equivalence made therein was not preceded by any objective evaluation of the nature and responsibilities of both offices and as such, was not in full compliance of Rule 12 of IAS Pay Rules.
33. According to the applicant, even though the said OA was allowed in his favour, the present incumbent in the office of the 3rd respondent Chief Secretary, has been continuing to take vindictive attitude against the Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 27 applicant even by refusing to give him a clear vigilance report in relation to his request dated 11.6.2025 for deputation to the post of Chief Controller, VSSC under the Government of India.
34. On 30.8.2025, he got information through the official group of IAS association that the 7th respondent herein was posted as the Agricultural Production Commissioner with full additional charge of Principal Secretary (Agriculture) Department by Annexure A10 order. By the same order the applicant was placed at the disposal of Transport Department for being appointed as Chairman and Managing Director, Kerala Transport Development Finance Corporation and the post of C&MD, KTDFC was stated to be declared as equivalent to that of the Principal Secretary to Government in the super time scale. By the said order two officers who were separately holding the post of Chairman and that of the Managing Director of KTDFC were relieved. According to the petitioner, the order was not served on him personally.
35. Applicant filed the present OA challenging Annexure A10 and seeking further reliefs. According to the applicant, Annexure A10 is in violation of Second proviso to Rule 6(2)(ii) of IAS (Cadre) Rules. It was Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 28 stated that the post of C&MD of the KTDFC was inferior to the post of an officer in the cadre of Principal Secretary to the Government. It was also stated that Annexure A10 was issued without convening the Civil Services Board and as such against the mandate contained in GO (Ms) No. 107/2014/GAD dated 5.5.2014 produced as Annexure A13 which prescribed that Civil Services Board shall make recommendation for all appointments of cadre officers. It was also in violation of interim order issued in OA No. 367 of 2023. It was further contended that the equation of Chairman & Managing Director, KTDFC with that of Principal Secretary to Government was done without any objective assessment of duties and functions attached to the respective posts. It was further contended that the Government has no power either to nominate a Director as a Chairman of the Board of Directors or to appoint a Director as Managing Director of KTDFC by virtue of Articles 34 and 35 of the Articles of Association of KTDFC. A copy of the Articles of Association of KTDFC was produced as Annexure A16. It was contended that the transfer order was vitiated by malafides and has no legal validity. It was further stated that KTDFC was in extreme financial difficulties so that the regulator for NBFI, the RBI had issued directives to stop all NBFI Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 29 operations due to the poor net owned fund status of the Corporation. It is also stated that it had ceased to be a going concern and the decision to wind up KTDFC was taken as early as on 4.1.2021 by Annexure A28 communication.
36. Accordingly, applicant has approached this Tribunal with the following main prayers:
"i. Set aside Annexures A10 and A23 declaring that the same are issued without authority of law and as such is non est. ii. Declare that equivalence of the post of Chairman and Managing Director, KTDFC with that of the cadre post of Principal Secretary to Government in above super time scale of IAS in the scale of pay at level 15 in the pay matrix table (pay range Rs. 1,82,200-2,24,100) is highly illegal being in contravention of Rule 12(1) of IAS (Pay) Rules, 2016. iii. Declare that deputation of the applicant to the post of Chairman and Managing Director, KTDFC is in total disregard to IAS (Cadre) Rules, IAS (Pay) Rules, 2016 and the judicial pronouncements on deputation including the final order in OA 19/2025 passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal.
iv. Set aside Annexure A19 as being bad in law.
v. Declare that the applicant is entitled to be retained in the cadre
postings in his eligible cadre as Agricultural Production Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government of Kerala and in the Department of Agriculture and to consequentially direct the 2nd respondent not to relieve the applicant from his cadre postings."
37. The matter came up for admission on 9.9.2025. On that day the Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 30 learned SPC appeared for the 1st respondent, the Sr. Government Pleader on behalf of respondents Nos. 2 to 5 and the Senior counsel for the 8th respondent also appeared. Accordingly, after hearing both sides an interim order was passed staying the operation of paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Annexure A10. It was further directed that the applicant will continue to hold the post held by him prior to Annexure A10. The respondents Nos. 2 to 5 were directed to produce the entire original file that led to Annexure A10, duly paginated in a sealed cover.
38. On 16.9.2025 on behalf of the respondents Nos. 2 to 5 the learned Advocate General instructed by Ms. Vinitha, the Government Pleader appeared and placed before us a Government order dated 15.9.2025 by which paragraphs Nos. 1 to 3 of Government order dated 30.8.2025 which was impugned in this OA was withdrawn and the applicant was transferred and posted as Principal Secretary (Personnel) and Administrative Reforms Department with effect from 17.9.2025. It was contended by the learned Advocate General that in the light of the said Government order, OA has become infructuous. The learned Advocate General also vehemently opposed the proceeding of the OA with the Governor in the party array as the 8th respondent. It was contended by the Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 31 learned Advocate General that the 8th respondent Governor had appeared through a Senior counsel and his appearance was bad in law and his presence was not essential for the due determination of the issues involved in the OA. It was stated that even the entertainment of the OA with the 8th respondent in the party array was contrary to Articles 161, 166 and 361 of the Constitution of India and settled legal principles including the decisions in Rameshwar Prasad & Ors. v. Union of India [(2006) 2 SCC 1]. It was further contended that the OA itself should have not been entertained at the threshold and no notice should have been ordered to the Governor, who was only exercising a statutory function. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Governor contended that he had voluntarily appeared and in such case the bar under the Constitution will not apply. In the nature of above rival contentions, the matter was adjourned for a detailed hearing on the said question and the interim orders were extended.
39. On 23.9.2025 learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant does not propose to draw the litigation into different level between the Government and the Governor and proposed to confine to the core issue set up in the Original Application. Accordingly, respondent Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 32 No. 8 was deleted from the party array.
40. However, we took note of the fact that the order dated 15.9.2025 produced by the learned Advocate General was issued fully knowing that the interim order of stay of operation of paragraphs 1 to 3 of the Government order, was in force and the matter was to come up on the next day of the said order. The withdrawal of the order which was the subject matter of this OA and issuing fresh order of further transfer while the order of stay was in force, though it was to take effect after the posting dated 16.9.2025, was considered by this Tribunal as an act which would amount to pre-empting that the stay will be vacated on 16.9.2025. It also did not appear to be proper. Issuing such an order without the leave of the Tribunal when the matter was pending before the Tribunal and was under a stay, had the propensity of bypassing the order of the Tribunal. After noting this in the order it was directed that the said order will also stand deferred till the next posting date. Thereafter, the order has been extended from time to time. Consequently, the applicant is continuing as the Agricultural Production Commissioner and in additional charge of Principal Secretary, Agriculture Department.
41. Consequent to the issuance of above transfer order, produced as Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 33 Annexure A34, OA was amended incorporating grounds of challenge to Annexure A34 order and a further prayer was incorporated as relief No.
(viii) as follows:
"viii. To set aside Annexure 34 to the extent the applicant is transferred from the post of Agricultural Production Commissioner and Principal Secretary (Agriculture) and posted as Principal Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department w.e.f. 17.9.2025 since the same is arbitrary, illegal and non est as being issued without jurisdiction."
42. Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 filed a separate reply statement challenging the OA to the extent of arraying of Governor as a party respondent. Though this issue was pleaded in detail in the reply statement, in the light of removal of the Governor from the party array, we feel that this question does not survive. Hence, the exhaustive pleadings are not repeated.
43. It was stated that the issuance of Annexure A10 order dated 30.8.2025 placing the applicant at the disposal of the Transport Department for appointment as Chairman and Managing Director of KTDFC was in due exercise of the authority vested in the State Government under rule 6(2)(i) of the IAS (Cadre) Rules, 1954. KTDFC is a company wholly owned and controlled by the Government of Kerala Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 34 and deputation of IAS officers to such bodies was expressly permitted under the Rules. It was further contended that the allegation that the post of CMD, KTDFC carries a lower pay and that Annexure A10 was in violation of the Second Proviso to Rule 6(2)(ii) of the IAS (Cadre) Rules was misconceived. Applicant continues to draw his substantive pay in level 15 of the IAS pay matrix. Annexure A10 was issued precisely to safeguard his pay and status by declaring equivalence. Under Rule 12 of IAS (Pay) Rules, 2016 the Government is empowered to declare equivalence of status. Therefore, the executive function is not open to judicial review as held in the Union of India v. Pushpa Rani [(2008) 9 SCC 242]. The applicant did not suffer any loss of pay or rank by the impugned order.
44. The reliance placed on the interim order in OA No. 19 of 2025 was entirely misplaced and did not violate any of the directives of the Tribunal nor did it constitute a contempt. Combining of facts in OA No. 19 of 2025 with the present case which has already been heard and decided by this Bench is an attempt to create an impression that the applicant's current transfer and posting have a direct co-relation to the previous matter.
Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 35
45. The contention that Civil Service Board was not convened is not correct. Following the Supreme Court's decision in T.S.R. Subramanian's case (supra) amendments were made to IAS/IPS/IFS (Cadre) Rules to establish a fixed minimum tenure of two years for cadre postings and to mandate that appointments of pre-mature transfer of cadre post officers be recommended by a Civil Services Board. Though the role of CSB, while integral, remains recommendatory in nature and its non- convening does not invalidate the order since Annexure A10 was issued on completion of two years tenure of the applicant in the post of Agricultural Production Commissioner. It was contended that the applicant's contention that he is indispensable in the office of the Agricultural Production Commission is not sustainable. Transfer is an incident of employment and the earlier orders by which the applicant was transferred produced as Annexures R2(b), R2(c) and R2(d) were not impugned by the applicant and accepted the transfers.
46. Annexures A10, A19 and A23 are not arbitrary or illegal and were issued within the Constitutional frame work and statutory provisions. The power of Government to place an officer of the Indian Administrative Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 36 Service at the disposal of the Government owned company was directly from Rule 6(2)(i) of the IAS (Cadre) Rules. KTDFC is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, whose entire shareholding is held by the Government of Kerala. It is substantially owned and controlled by the State Government. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in E.P Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu [(1974) 4 SCC 3] that arbitrariness must be demonstrable and not a matter of perception. In the case at hand, the orders under challenge are supported by Rule based authority and therefore immune from such attack. The placement of an officer at the disposal of the Company under Rule 6(2)(i) is in the nature of deputation and upon such placement, necessary formalities have to be completed by the Company.
47. The contention of the applicant that Annexure A10 order violates 2nd proviso to Rule 6(2)(ii) of IAS (Cadre) Rules, 1954 is also untenable. In the present case, applicant has not been deprived of his substantive pay in Level-15 of the IAS pay matrix. Annexure A10 itself makes a declaration of equivalence to safeguard his interest, pay and status. In Union of India v. Pushparani [(2008) 9 SCC 242], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that equivalence is an executive determination to be made Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 37 by the Government and the administrative actions including creation and classification of posts which falls squarely within the permissible executive discretion. Annexure A10 specifically declares the equivalence of CMD. The reliance placed by the applicant on the order in OA No. 19 of 2025 is misplaced. That order turned on the peculiar facts relating to the Local Self Government Reforms Commission. In the present case, equivalence has been consciously declared by the Government and the applicant had suffered no reduction of pay. The contention of the applicant that the equivalence declaration was artificial and not based on the objective assessment is wrong and not sustainable. On the above pleadings, the respondents contended that the OA itself was not sustainable and was liable to be dismissed.
48. The applicant filed a detailed rejoinder in answer to the reply statement filed by the respondents 2 to 5. The allegation that the attempt of the applicant was to resist lawful administrative action and to protract his tenure as conferring on him vested right to continue in post now held by him was denied. It was contended that the applicant was constrained to repeatedly approach this Tribunal only due to successive arbitrary actions on the part of respondents Nos. 2 to 5 to displace him from one place to Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 38 another under the guise of extreme administrative exigencies. It was stated that Annexure A34 order posting the applicant as Principal Secretary, P&ARD without the recommendations of the Civil Services Board and while the interim order permitting the applicant to continue as Agriculture Production Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government (Agriculture) was in force, are all glaring instances of applicant being proceeded against unlawfully. It was contended that Rule 7 of the IAS (Cadre) Rules, 1954 as amended in 2014 and 2016 produced as Annexure A36 would show that all postings/appointment/transfers of cadre officers shall be made on recommendations of Civil Services Board. It was contended that there is a clear distinction between the concepts of recruitment and appointment. It was contended that accordingly the terms "recruitment", "appointment" and "transfer" cannot be co-founded in service jurisprudence. It was incontrovertible that every posting of a Kerala Cadre officer to anyone of the cadre post, each of which is distinct post by itself, is an appointment, meaning thereby an actual act of posting a cadre officer to a particular post. There is a clear distinction between the terms "appointment" and "transfer" used in Rule 7, as evident from the words employed therein.
Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 39
49. A reply statement was filed by the 6th respondent - KTDFC. It stated that the allegation in the Original Application that KTDFC was dormant, inactive and non-functional or in the course of winding up were wholly incorrect and misleading. No such allegation should have been made by the applicant who is a senior IAS officer. The respondents relied on the document issued under Companies' Act showing that the Company had filed E-form MGT-7 for the financial year ending in 2024. Documents issued from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs regarding the acceptance of the said form was also produced. A true copy of the Company information as seen in the Ministry of Corporate Affairs website was produced as Annexure R6 to contend that the Company status was active. Hence, it was contended that the documents produced by the applicant prior to Annexure R6(c), cannot help to substantiate the contention that the KTDFC was not an active organization.
50. However, the learned counsel for the applicant contended that since applicant was assailing Annexure A10, and though the posting of the applicant as Chairman and Managing Director of KTDFC by Annexure A10 was revoked by Annexure A34, in the event of setting aside Annexure A34, a possible contention may be set up that Annexure A10 Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 40 will revive, applicant sought adjudication of legality of Annexure A10 also. Accordingly, that issue is also raised and considered.
51. Since the common issues arises in OA No. 418 of 2025 along with OA No. 367 of 2023 and a decision on the ambit of CSB will have a bearing on OA No. 418 of 2025, both the OAs were heard together along with CP(C) No. 9 of 2025 and CP(C) No. 41 of 2025.
52. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant Mrs. Girija K. Gopal, Senior Advocate Mr. K. Gopalakrishna Kurup, the learned Advocate General instructed by Mrs. B. Vineetha, Mr. Bijoy Chandran, learned Senior Government Pleaders on behalf of respondents 2 to 5 and Advocate Mr. Deepu Thankan, learned Standing Counsel for KTDFC. Examined the records. On the basis of pleadings in both the cases, the following points emerge for consideration:-
1) Is OA No. 367/2023 not maintainable being one, not filed by persons aggrieved under the Administrative Tribunals Act of 1985.
2) Whether Rule 7 of IAS Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 as amended in 2014 empower State Government to appoint (including Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 41 transfer) and post an IAS cadre officer before and on completion of minimum prescribed tenure as contemplated under Rule 7(C)(ii) of above Rules without the recommendation of committee on minimum tenure (Civil Services Board) constituted under Annexure A3 order of GAD (Special) Department dated 5.5.2014.
3) Whether the above Rules and Annexure A3 GO empower the Government to effect all kinds of transfers, appointments and postings, whether on completion of the minimum tenure prescribed under Rule 7(C)(ii) of the said Rules or not, without recommendation of the Civil Services Board ?
4) Whether the interim order granted in OA No. 367 of 2023 dated 13.11.2023 is liable to be confirmed ?
5) Whether the post of Excise Commissioner in Kerala is a cadre post as included in the Schedule to the Indian Administrative Service (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regulations, 1955 as amended in 2013?
Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30'
42
6) Whether the posting of the private respondents Nos. 9 and 10
in OA No. 367 of 2023 as the Director General and Director respectively of KILA and IMG by a redesignation of post and/or creation of new posts is a colourable exercise of jurisdiction and thus violative of Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules ?
7) Whether the applicant is entitled for declarations as sought in relief No. (2), (3) and (4) in OA No. 367 of 2023 ?
8) 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 as void and non est on the ground that it was without recommendation of the Civil Services Board and that it was in disregard to the IAS (Cadre) Rules and IAS (Pay) 2016 and the equivalence of the post of CMD, KTDFC with the cadre post of Principal Secretary is illegal and in contravention of Rule 12(1) of IAS (Pay) Rules, 2016?
9) Whether the transfer and posting of the applicant as Principal Secretary, Personnel Administrative Reforms Department by Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 43 Annexure A34 in OA No. 418 of 2025 is invalid in the absence of recommendation by the Civil Services Board and one being issued during the pendency of the Original Application No. 418 of 2025 before this Tribunal ?
10) 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 liable to be proceeded against?
11) Reliefs and costs ?
Point No. 1 :
53. OA No. 367/2023 is filed by the Association of Indian Administrative Service officers allotted to Kerala cadre represented by its Secretary. 2nd and the 3rd applicants are the members of the association. The common grievance of the applicants is that being Indian Administrative Service officers, by virtue of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in T.S.R. Subramanian's case (supra), and the consequential amendment to the Rules by the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 2014, and Annexure A3 notification constituting Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 44 Civil Services Board (CSB), in Kerala, each of the member of 1st applicant association is entitled for a minimum assured tenure, protection against indiscrete transfer without compliance with the Rules and guidelines applicable and without convening the Civil Services Board prior to the transfers, postings and appointments of the IAS officers and protection against filling of cadre posts by persons outside the cadre. The OA is so drafted as if it is intended to project the common cause of all the members of the association as well as the individual grievances of the 2nd and 3rd applicants. It was alleged by the applicants that inspite of the constitution of the Civil Services Board under the IAS (Cadre) Rules, 2014, there has been indiscreet and indiscriminate transfer of officers of IAS cadre in violation of IAS (Cadre) Rules, 1954 and IAS (Cadre) Amendment Rules, without recommendation of the Civil Services Board. The contention was that such transfers are in breach of the said Rules. It was further contended that the posts of Excise Commissioner, Director of KILA and Director General, Institute of Management in Government (IMG) were cadre posts meant to be filled up by IAS officers, but are now being filled up by officers not belonging to the IAS cadre. Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 45
54. According to the applicants, they have projected this grievance before the various authorities. Since there was no response, they submitted Annexure A10 representation to the Chief Minister. Annexure A10 was submitted by the association signed by the then Secretary, who is now the president of the Association. The 2nd applicant was the President of the said association during the relevant time as revealed from Annexure A10 itself. It is seen that since it was not responded, Annexure A11 representation was submitted by the 2nd applicant individually wherein he objected to the filling up of post of Excise Commissioner by an IPS officer against cadre Rules and offered himself as willing to be considered to the post of Excise Commissioner, if CSB is convened for the same.
55. The Original Application was vehemently opposed by the contesting respondents Nos. 2 to 5. One preliminary objection was that the OA itself was not maintainable, since it did not raise any individual grievance of applicants Nos. 2 and 3. It was contended that by virtue of Section 2(b) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, "application" means an application made under Section 19 of the Act. Section 19 provides that "any person" aggrieved by any order pertaining to any subject matter Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 46 within the jurisdiction of Tribunal may make an application to the Tribunal for the redressal of his grievance. Section 20 of the Act provides that Tribunal shall not ordinarily admit an application unless it is satisfied that "the applicant" had availed all the remedies available to him under the relevant service Rules as to the redressal of the grievance. Section 19 of the Act states that a person aggrieved can approach the Tribunal only for redressal of "his grievance". Further, application can be filed only against the orders passed for disposing of the appeal or representation pending before the competent authority. The provisions do not confer the Central Administrative Tribunal with power to entertain an application seeking a relief of general nature as claimed in the OA. Further, the OA did not disclose any specific individual grievance of the 2nd and 3rd applicants. It was further contended that Administrative Tribunals cannot entertain matters in the nature of public interest litigations.
56. The crux of the contention of the learned Advocate General was that the purport of the Administrative Tribunals Act was that it can be initiated only by a person, to redress his individual grievance alone or persons of similar grievance joining together with the permission of the Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 47 Tribunal. A person who is not aggrieved by an order cannot be a party to the proceeding and to that extent the OA is not sustainable.
57. To supplement this contention, the learned Advocate General placed reliance on the decision reported in Gopabandhu Biswal v. Krishna Chandra Mohanty & Ors. [(1998) 4 SCC 447], wherein the above issue was considered under the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act. According to the Supreme Court, a person who seek a challenge before the Administrative Tribunal must be a person aggrieved. It was held that, however leniently one may construe the term party aggrieved, a person not directly affected cannot be so considered. Only persons who are directly and immediately affected by the impugned order can be considered as parties aggrieved under Section 22(3)(f) read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
58. Subsequently, three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu & Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra & Ors. [(1998) 7 SCC 273] considered the identical issue. It was held by the Bench that Administrative Tribunal constituted under the Act is not competent to entertain public interest litigation at the instance of a total stranger. In that Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 48 case, the appointment of a Doctor as Professor in the Department of Gastroenterology under the Government was challenged by an association. The prayer sought was to create one more post of Junior Teacher and to appoint the said Doctor. Considering the question whether the Tribunal is empowered to deal with such public interest litigation it was held that the term "person aggrieved" does not comprehend a stranger to the service concerned. Public interest litigation preferred before the Administrative Tribunal by a private person or an association of private individuals who have no interest in such matters cannot be brought within the ambit of the proceedings under the Administrative Tribunals Act, it was held.
59. The same issue was considered by a Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala in Union of India & Ors. v. All India Naval Clerks Association & Anr. (WPC No. 21384 of 2007). The Division Bench, relying on Duryodhan Sahu's case (supra) and several other decisions, held that having regard to the content of Sections 19 and 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act and the statutory status of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Rule 4(5)(b) provides authority to the Tribunal to grant permission to an Association representing the persons desirous of Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 49 joining in a single application, provided, however that, the application has been filed with at least one affected person joining such application.
60. In the present case, the 1st applicant is an association represented by its Secretary. They are espousing a common grievance of all the individuals constituting the association. The 2nd applicant was its President, though arrayed in his individual capacity. He is an aggrieved person in so far as he has offered himself to be appointed as an Excise Commissioner which relief was not granted and the post was filled up by a non-IAS officer. Applying the law laid down in Duryodhan Sahu's case (supra) coupled with the Division Bench decision in All India Naval Clerks Association's case (supra), it is clear that applicants are aggrieved and their common cause is espoused in the OA. Definitely, OA does not fall within the ambit of a public interest litigation, but a common cause of all the members constituting the association.
61. Having considered this we are inclined to reject the contention of the respondents and to hold that the OA is maintainable.
Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30'
50
Points Nos. 2, 3 and 4 -
62. The State Government in its reply statement specifically admitted the constitution of the Civil Services Board, though regarding its ambit and scope, they differed from the stand taken by the applicants. In the light of the above, we are inclined to look and examine the legal issues involved, in the context of the provisions of the Indian Administrative Services (Cadre) Rules, 1954 as amended in 2014, consequent to T.S.R. Subramanian's case.
63. In T.S.R. Subramanian's case, few eminent retired civil servants had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Constitution highlighting the requirement of reforming Civil Service for preservation of integrity, fearlessness and independence of civil servants at the State and Central level. They sought for directions on the basis of various reports and recommendations submitted by various committees appointed for suggesting improvements of the public administration. The Supreme Court noticed that civil servants have to function in accordance with the Constitution and the Laws made by the Parliament. It was observed that in the present political scenario, the role of civil servants has become very complex and onerous. Often, they have Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 51 to take decisions which will have far reaching consequences in the economic and technological fields, wherein decisions must be transparent and must be fully in public interest. They should be fully accountable to the community they serve. The reports of Hota Committee, Second Administrative Reforms Commission, 2008, and the Santhanam Committee have highlighted various lacunae in the present system which called for serious attention by the political executive as well as by the lawmakers. The Supreme Court concluded as follows:
"30. We notice, at present the civil servants are not having stability of tenure, particularly in the State Governments where transfers and postings are made frequently, at the whims and fancies of the executive head for political and other considerations and not in public interest. The necessity of minimum tenure has been endorsed and implemented by the Union Government. In fact, we notice, almost 13 States have accepted the necessity of a minimum tenure for civil servants. Fixed minimum tenure would not only enable the civil servants to achieve their professional targets, but also help them to function as effective instruments of public policy. Repeated shuffling/transfer of the officers is deleterious to good governance. Minimum assured service tenure ensures efficient service delivery and also increased efficiency. They can also prioritize various social and economic measures intended to implement for the poor and marginalized sections of the society.
31. We, therefore, direct the Union State Governments and Union Territories to issue appropriate directions to secure providing of minimum tenure of service to various civil servants, within a period of three months."
64. It was directed that the Central, State Government and the Union Territories shall constitute such Boards with high-ranking officers who Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 52 are specialists in their respective fields within a period of three months, if not already constituted, till Parliament brings up a special legislation in setting up the Civil Services Board. Accordingly, Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 2014 was introduced, providing for constitution of Civil Services Board.
65. Rule 2(1)(a) of IAS (Cadre) Rules, 1954 as amended by 2014 defines a cadre officer. Rule 2(1)(b) defines a cadre post. Rule 7(3) lays down that a cadre officer appointed to cadre post shall hold the office for at least two years unless, he or she has been promoted, retired or sent on deputation outside State or training exceeding two months. Rule 7(5) provides that an officer may be transferred before the minimum tenure on the recommendation of the committee on minimum tenure. Relevant Rules stipulates that Centre and State may transfer a cadre officer before minimum prescribed period on recommendation of Civil Services Board. However, competent authority may reject the recommendations of the CSB, but will have to place on record its reasons. In the matters of transfer, State CSB was to consider the report of the Administrative Department along with any other inputs and shall obtain the views of the officer proposed to be transferred. The CSB has to be headed by the Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 53 Chief Secretary and include senior most Additional Chief Secretary or a Chairman, Board of Revenue or Finance or officer of the equivalent rank. In Kerala, State CSB was constituted by Annexure A3 order. Respondents 3 to 5 are the members of the Civil Services Board in Kerala. Consequent to the above judgment, the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions on 28.1.2014 notified Indian Administrative Services (Cadre) Amendment Rules, 2014 with the essential modifications in Rule 7 of the said Rules.
66. The relevant Rule read as follows:
"7. Postings.-(1) All appointments of cadre officers shall be made on the recommendation of the Civil Services Board as specified in the Schedule annexed to these rules.
(2) All appointments to cadre posts referred to in sub-rule (1) shall be made--
(a) in the case of a State Cadre, by the State Government;
and
(b) in the case of a Joint Cadre, by the State Government concerned:
(3) A cadre officer, appointed to any cadre post shall hold the office for at least two years unless in the meantime he or she has been promoted, retired or sent on deputation outside the State or training exceeding two months.
(4) A cadre officer, appointed to any ex-cadre post shall hold office for such period as may be specified by the State Government for that post, unless in the meantime he or she has been promoted, retired or Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 54 sent on deputation outside the State or training exceeding two months. (5) The Central Government or the State Government as the case may be, may transfer a cadre officer before the minimum specified period on the recommendation of the Civil Services Board as specified in the Schedule annexed to these rules:
Provided that the Competent Authority may reject the recommendation of the Civil Services Board by recording the reasons therefor.
(b) 7A. ...............................................
2. Functions.-- (a) The Civil Services Board shall make recommendation for all appointments of cadre officers.
(b) The Civil Services Board shall examine the. cases of officers who are proposed to be transferred before completion of minimum period of service as specified under sub-rules (3) and (4) of rule 7 of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954.
(c) The Civil Services Board may consider for transfer before the tenure fixed under sub-rules (3) and (4) of rule 7 of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 based on such circumstances as it thinks fit.
(d) The Civil Services Board may recommend to the Competent Authority the names of officers for transfer before completion of minimum tenure with reasons to be recorded in writing.
3. Procedure.-- (a) The Civil Services Board shall seek detailed justification from the Administrative Department of the concerned State Government for the transfer of an officer before the specified tenure.
(b) The Civil Services Board shall--
(i) consider the report of the Administrative Department
along with any other inputs it may have from other reliable sources;
(ii) obtain the comments or views of the officer proposed to be transferred based on the circumstances presented to it in justification of the proposal;
Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 55
(iii) not make recommendation for premature transfer of Cadre Officers unless it has been satisfied itself of the reasons for such premature transfer.
(c) The Civil Services Board shall submit a quarterly report in such Form as it thinks fit to the Central Government clearly stating the details of officers recommended to be transferred before the minimum specified tenure and the reasons therefor:
Provided that the Competent Authority may reject the recommendation of the Civil Services Board for the reasons to be recorded in writing."
67. In terms of Annexure A4, orders were issued by the General Administration Department of Government of Kerala constituting CSB with Chief Secretary as the Chairman, senior most Additional Chief Secretary/Additional Chief Secretary (Finance) as Member and Additional Chief Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department as its Member Secretary. This was the composition of the CSB in relation to the IAS officers.
68. The applicants further relied on Annexures A21 to A27 to establish that similar Civil Services Boards were constituted in various other States and Union Territories, in tune with T.S.R. Subramanian's case.
69. The grievance of the applicants is that though immediately after constitution of the CSB, transfer and postings were done in accordance Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 56 with the recommendation and consultation of the CSB, it become defunct thereafter and several orders of transfers and postings were issued by the Government of Kerala without consultation of the CSB. Annexures A12 to A15 are projected as instances of such transfers and postings.
70. Rule 7 of Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 2014 provides that all appointments of cadre officers shall be made on recommendations of the Civil Services Board as prescribed in the Schedule annexed to the Rules. It was contended by the respondents that the above Rule does not mandate that every transfer and posting of IAS officers shall be effected only on recommendations of the Civil Services Board. The recommendations of the Civil Services Board is required only in any of the two circumstances mentioned in Rule 7(1) and (5) of the IAS (Cadre) Rules, 2014, it was contended. It was further contended that on completion of tenure as prescribed in Rule 7(3), the Government is free to transfer an IAS officer without recommendation of the CSB.
71. The basis of the contention of respondents was that the term "all appointments" employed in Rule 7(1) of IAS (Cadre) Rules did not cover every posting or transfer in the light of the decision reported in Prafulla Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 57 Kumar Swain etc. v. Prakash Chandra Misra & Ors. [1993 SCC (L&S) 960], wherein the Supreme Court distinguished between the words "recruitment" and "appointment". It was held that the term recruitment connotes and clearly signifies enlistment, acceptance, selection or approval for appointment. Certainly, this is not the actual appointment or posting in service. In contradistinction, the word "appointment" means an actual act of posting a person to a particular office, it was held. The learned Advocate General relying on the above decision contended that the distinction made clearly shows that every transfer or administrative re-allocation cannot be treated as appointment. Transfers are mere incidence of service and are conceptually distinct from appointment, it was contended. The term 'appointment' employed in Rule 7 can only mean initial appointment to any cadre, it was contended. If the applicants' interpretation is accepted every temporary additional charge, reshuffle or short term re-arrangement of offices will fall within Rule 7(1), thereby stalling the cadre administration. Such a wide interpretation never intended by the Rules or by the Supreme Court may lead to CSB acting as a super authority conferred with powers beyond what was contemplated under the Rules. Such an interpretation was not conducive to the Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 58 administrative set up, it was contended.
72. The reliance placed on Prafulla Kumar Swain's case (supra) does not appear to be relevant to the facts of the case. That was a case wherein the Supreme Court had distinguished between the terms "recruitment"
and "appointment" in the context of a seniority dispute between promotees and direct recruits. The said distinction is of no relevance since we are essentially concerned with the scope of the term "appointments" as referred to in Rule 7(1) of IAS (Cadre) Rules, 2014. Regarding the reliance placed on Prafulla Kumar Swain's case (supra) it was contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that it was well settled in service law that there is a clear distinction between the concepts of recruitment and appointment. While the term recruitment connotes and clearly signifies enlistment, etc. the word appointment is an actual act of posting a person to a particular office. The term used in the context of postings as referred to in Rule 7(1) should be interpreted from this contextual perspective and also in the common parlance as referred to in Prafulla Kumar Swain's case, it was argued.
Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 59
73. It was contended that in the light of the definition of the term cadre post under Rule 2(b) of IAS (Cadre) Rules, 1954, to mean any post specified under item (1) of each cadre in the Schedule to the IAS (Fixation of cadre strength) Regulations, 1955, it was incontrovertible that every posting of a cadre officer to any one of the cadre post in Annexure A4, issued under Indian Administrative Service (Fixation of cadre strength) Regulation, 1955, each of which post was distinct by itself was an appointment meaning thereby, the actual act of posting a cadre officer to a particular office.
74. Though respondents placed reliance on Prafulla Kumar Swain's case (supra), that decision does not fully align with the contention of the respondents. A combined reading of IAS Recruitment Rules, 1954 and IAS (Cadre) Rules clearly shows that initial recruitment to the Indian Administrative Service shall be done only by the Central Government and no such appointment shall be made except after recruitment by one of the methods mentioned in Rule 4 of IAS (Cadre) Rules. It is after recruitment to the Indian Administrative Service that allocation is done to various cadres by the Central Government under Rule 5 of the IAS (Cadre) Rules. After their allocation to the respective cadres, all further appointments to Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 60 different cadres and transfers as between equivalent cadre posts are done by the State Government by issuing orders of posting under Rule 7. Hence, the contention of respondents that the term "appointment" in Rule 7 should be read in a narrow compass cannot be accepted.
75. Before further proceeding it is essential to refer to the scope of CSB as highlighted by the Supreme Court in T.S.R. Subramanian's case (supra). Applicants had approached Supreme Court, requesting for laying guidelines for regulating, inter alia indiscreet transfers of IAS officers. The Supreme Court, after referring to the need for constituting a Civil Services Board consisting of higher ranking service officials, held that such a Civil Services Board could be a better alternative to guide and advice the State Government on "all service matters especially on transfers, postings and disciplinary action, etc. though their views could be overruled by political executives by recording reasons, which would ensure good governance, transparency and accountability in Governmental functions". The Bench did not say that CSB will be operational only in case of premature transfers and not in case of transfers on completion of tenure. The fixation of minimum tenure was also prescribed. Paragraph 28 of T.S.R. Subramanian's case (supra) Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 61 specifically referred to constitution of an independent Board for the purpose of recommending all service matters including the transfers was also provided.
76. In tune with the direction of the Supreme Court, Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules,1954 was amended, by Annexure A2 by Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 2014. Rule 7 was substituted prescribing a normal minimum tenure of two years. It also provided for constitution of a Civil Services Board. Accordingly, Kerala Government issued Annexure A3 order dated 5.5.2014 prescribing the constitution of Civil Services Boad. The functioning of the CSB as evident from page 3 of Annexure A3 is that the "Civil Services Board shall make recommendations for all appointments of cadre officers". It does not speak of recommendations on completion of minimum period of service as provided under sub rules (3) and (4) of Rule 7 of IAS (Cadre) Rules, 1954. In sub clause (b), of Annexure A3 under the heading "functions" it was provided that CSB shall examine all cases of officers who are proposed to be transferred before completion of minimum period of service. Evidently, Rule 7 as well as the Government order constituting CSB clearly refers to the different situations on completion of minimum Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 62 service; before completion of minimum tenure; and on completion of deputation period and it provides for separate specific provisions.
77. The contention of the learned Advocate General that the CSB will have jurisdiction only in relation to premature transfers before completion of the minimum tenure is not discernable from Annexure A3 and also does not stand to logic. The heading of Rule 7 is "postings". Rule specifically says that "all appointments of cadre officer" shall be made on the recommendation of CSB. Rule 7(2) provides that "all appointments to cadre posts" may be made by State Government or Central Government as the case may be under the heading "Functions" of CSB. Clause 2(a) provides that CSB shall make recommendations for "all appointments of cadre officers". This being the general provision, thereafter a special procedure is carved out in the case of officers proposed to be transferred before minimum period by following the procedure prescribed in clauses 2(b), (c), (d) and clause 3. The scheme of the said Rules clearly indicates that all appointments of officers shall be made on recommendations of CSB and special procedure is prescribed for transfers and appointment prior to the expiry of minimum tenure. Further, if the interpretation offered of respondents is accepted that may lead to several Rules of Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 63 Annexure A3 becoming redundant, in part and otiose. No other interpretation is possible from the scheme of the Rules.
78. The said contention of the learned Advocate General is not sustainable for other reasons also. After the interim order was granted by this Tribunal in this OA, CSB was convened on several occasions. Annexures A39 to A54 are the proposals placed before the Civil Services Board seeking transfer, posting, appointment, granting of additional charge, transfer before completion of minimum service tenure, transfer on completion of minimum tenure and even the case of officers who were to be given further higher posts and the minutes of the CSB thereon. In all the above cases, it clearly indicates that some of the officers whose cases were placed before the CSB included the officers who have completed minimum service tenure and were proposed to be transferred. Annexure A48 relates to the recommendation sought from CSB for giving additional charge to one officer by placing his case before the CSB. The above documents further indicate that recommendations were sought in the cases of several officers who have completed district level/field tenure and were proposed to be posted at district level after completion of district level and field level tenure. In some cases, there were proposals to Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 64 post at Director level. This establishes that even the Government understood the scope of Rule 7 as one covering all types of transfers and postings, even on completion of minimum tenure. Evidently, the present contrary stand is an afterthought to defend the case of the applicants.
79. The apprehension projected by the learned Advocate General was that if the interpretation of the applicants that the provision covers all types of transfers, even on completion of minimum service tenure is accepted, that may lead to the Civil Services Board being vested with huge powers, even powers higher than that of the Government and what the Supreme Court contemplated. This is absolutely without any basis. There are inherent checks in the Rule itself which prescribe the clear jurisdiction of the CSB, which is constituted essentially to prevent indiscriminate transfers and postings of higher officers, with the authority of the Government to overrule it.
80. Rule 7(3)(c) of Annexure A2(a) provide that Civil Services Board shall submit quarterly report in such form as it thinks fit, to the Central Government clearly stating the details of officers recommended to be transferred before the minimum specified tenure and the reasons thereof. Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 65 Corresponding provision is incorporated in Annexure A3. In the course of hearing, we had specifically asked the learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the Central Government as to whether any quarterly reports had in fact been submitted to the Union Government. After instructions it was submitted by the learned Senior Panel Counsel that no such quarterly report has been submitted. In fact, it is the duty of the State Government to scrupulously submit the reports at prescribed intervals and correspondingly on the Union Government, to seek reports at definite intervals.
81. Accordingly, points are answered holding that the Government can transfer and post an IAS cadre officer only on recommendation of the Civil Services Board, whether on completion of minimum service tenure or not. The interim order dated 13.11.2023 in OA No. 367 of 2023 is confirmed clarifying that the term "appointment" in Rule 7 of IAS(Cadre) Rules, 2014, includes all transfer and postings of IAS officers. Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 66 Point No. 5 -
Whether the post of Excise Commissioner in Kerala is a cadre post as included in the schedule to the Indian Administrative Service (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regulations ?
82. Annexure A4 is the Indian Administrative Service (Kerala Cadre) enlisting the authorized strength of IAS officers in Kerala. The updated notification is Annexure A58 dated 16.8.2007. The contention of the applicants was that the post of Excise Commissioner is a cadre post of the officers of Indian Administrative Service (Kerala cadre) and included in Annexures A4 and A58 lists. It specifically refers to five posts of Commissioners. According to the applicants it includes the post of Excise Commissioner. It was further contended that in spite of the above, the respondents have been successively appointing IPS officers as Excise Commissioner in violation of Annexures A4 and A58. It is not a cadre post of IPS officers nor included in their list of cadre posts. At the time of filing the OA, the 8th respondent who was an IPS officer, was holding that post. He was appointed by Annexure A6 order dated 16.6.2023. It seems that before Annexure A5 order, another IPS officer Shri S. Ananthakrishnan was holding the post of Excise Commissioner by order dated 1.11.2022. At the time of hearing, it was stated that now it is filled Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 67 up by an IAS officer. Since the possibility that an IPS officer being posted in future, the question whether it is an earmarked cadre post of IAS officers was argued in detail by both sides and hence that issue is being decided in this OA.
83. The above contention of the applicants was vehemently disputed by the respondents in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the reply statement. It was stated that 9 different posts of Commissioners were specifically included in IAS (Fixation of Cadre strength) Regulations, 1955 as amended in 2013 for the Kerala cadre. In addition to that, 5 posts of Commissioners were also included in the IAS (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regulations for the Kerala cadre. These 5 Commissioner posts in IAS (Fixation of Cadre strength) Regulations, 1955 as amended in 2013 are to be filled up by posting IAS officers in the grade of Secretary. 5 cadre posts of Commissioners in IAS Kerala cadre can be operated in any of the Government departments having scope for posting a Commissioner.
84. Regarding the post of Commissioner of Excise, it was claimed by the respondents that it was not a post specifically included in the IAS (Fixation of Cadre strength) Regulations, 1955 as notified in Annexure Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 68 A4. Section 4 of the Abkari Act provides that the Government may appoint Commissioner of Excise. He is an Abkari officer within the meaning of Section 3(2) of the Abkari Act. The functions of the Excise Department predominantly involve prevention, detection and investigation of serious offences of heinous nature. Section 30A of the Abkari Act provides that for the purpose of investigation of offences under the Act, Abkari officers shall have the power of investigation, which the police officers have under the Code of Criminal Procedure. They wield considerable power under the provisions of the Act. Relying on the above provisions it was contended that an Excise Commissioner is an Abkari officer who may have to investigate, lay charge sheet, lay report regarding offence and prosecute offenders in serious cases. Accordingly, Excise Commissioner should ideally be a senior Police officer, it was contended. Therefore, appointment of IPS officers as Commissioner of Excise was in the fitness of things. Ever since the appointment of Shri Rishiraj Singh as Commissioner of Excise in 2016, the post is being held by officers from the Indian Police Service. There is no illegality in the appointment of 8th respondent as Commissioner of Excise, it was contended.
Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 69
85. It is pertinent to note that by virtue of Section 4(a), the Government has conferred on the Excise Commissioner general control of the Government of the administration of the Abkari Department and collection of Abkari revenue or both. It includes multifarious functions not confined to investigation and registration of crime of Abkari offences alone. Normally the functions of Abkari officer is seldom exercised by the Excise Commissioner. It is also to be noted that Excise Commissioner comes under the Taxes Department of the Government. The fact that Section 4(c) enables the Government to withdraw the Abkari power from officers including the Commissioner clearly shows that Abkari officers' power is not an indispensable functions of the Excise Commissioner. Hence, the contention of the respondents that Excise Commissioner has to be an IPS officer, especially when by virtue of Section 4(a) the Excise Commissioner have a general control of the administration of the Abkari Department and of collection of revenue or of both, cannot be accepted. He is the administrative head of the Abkari Department.
86. Further, the pleading of respondents specifically conceals the persons who held the post prior to 2016. The Government, which has all the relevant records available with them, has no case that IPS officers Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 70 were appointed as Excise Commissioner prior to 2016. In the absence of any pleading that IPS officers were holding the post of Commissioner of Excise prior to 2016, the most reasonable conclusion is that IPS officers were being appointed to that post from 2016 only. The nature of pleading clearly gives a reasonable indication that prior to 2016 it would have been held by the IAS officers as contended by the applicants.
87. Regarding the evolution of the post of Excise Commissioner, both sides relied on Annexure A34, the Kerala Board of Revenue Act, 1934. One of the Departments held by Board of Revenue was Excise and Prohibition Department under the 1st schedule. Board of Revenue was abolished by Annexure A35 Board of Revenue Abolition Act, 1996. By virtue of Section 4 of the Act, the jurisdiction and powers vested in and duties performed by Board of Revenue and individual members, thereafter stood vested with Government or Commissioner or District Collector. The Government was also empowered to appoint Commissioners not exceeding five.
88. Thereafter, Government issued Annexure A60 notification No. SRO 525/1998 by which, in exercise of powers vested in Government by Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 71 Section 5 of Annexure A35, Sri John Mathai, IAS was appointed as Commissioner and designated him as Commissioner of Excise. By SRO 526 of 1998 all powers vested in relation to Kerala Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction) Rules, 1972 and the Abkari Shops Departmental Manager Rules, 1972 stood vested in Commissioner of Excise. By Annexure A61 amendment to Special Rules for Kerala Excise and Prohibition Subordinate Service was brought in substituting the words "Boards of Revenue (Excise)" with the word "Commissioner of Excise". Those materials clearly indicate that the Commissioner of Excise was intended to be an IAS officer and accordingly, the first Commissioner of Excise was an IAS officer. Government did not establish that thereafter, till the appointment of Sri Rishiraj Singh, IPS as Excise Commissioner, anyone other than an IAS officer has held the said post.
89. There is yet another reason to hold that the above contention of the respondents is not sustainable. The specific contention of the applicants was that in the authorized list of the Indian Police Service, Kerala Cadre, under the IPS (Fixation of cadre strength) Regulations, 1955, the post of Excise Commissioner is not included therein. The civil list evidencing the authorized strength of IPS (Kerala cadre) effective from 18.8.2022 issued Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 72 under Schedule to the IPS (Fixation of cadre strength) Regulations, 1955 was produced as Annexure A28. The post of Excise Commissioner is not included in that list.
90. The fact that the post of Excise Commissioner is not included in Annexure A28 is very crucial. The Commissioner specifically mentioned therein is Transport Commissioner. Accordingly, it is only to be held that the post of Excise Commissioner in Kerala cadre is a post included in the IAS cadre list and can only be filled up by IAS officers. The point is answered accordingly.
Point No. 6 -
Whether the post of Director, KILA is an IAS cadre post and designation of a post as Director General, KILA and appointment of respondent No. 9 is legally sustainable?
91. Admittedly, the post of Director, KILA is an IAS cadre post as one included in Annexures A4 and A58. The grievance of the applicants is that respondent No. 9 who is not a member of any All India Service was posted to the IAS cadre post of Director, KILA, in blatant violation of IAS (Cadre) Rules, by designating the post of Director, KILA as Director General. He was initially appointed as the Director by Annexure A7 GO dated 5.5.2017 for three years. His term was extended for three years by Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 73 OM dated 18.5.2020. It was further extended for two years by OM dated 18.5.2022. It was again extended by one year by letter dated 2.5.2023. By Annexure A8 dated 15.5.2023 the term of 9th respondent was extended for a further period from 10.5.2023 till a Director General, KILA was appointed. Annexure A8 indicates that by Government Order dated 18.5.2020, the 9th respondent was appointed as Director General for three years.
92. The contention of the applicants is that the extension of the 9th respondent with a new designation as Director General, KILA was to surreptitiously distinguish it from the cadre post of Director, KILA and it smacks nothing short of malafide exercise of power. It was contended that the post of Director, KILA which is the Chief Executive Office of the institution is an en-cadred post to be manned by a cadre officer of the Indian Administrative Service of Kerala cadre as per Annexure A4. However, it emerges that during the pendency of this OA, Writ Petition (C) No. 37185 of 2023 was filed by a person challenging the appointment of the 9th respondent as the Director General. By Annexure A31 judgment, the appointment of respondent No. 9 was declared as illegal and it was directed that steps should be taken to appoint a qualified Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 74 person as Director General. The appointment of the 9th respondent was nullified and orders passed by him till that time were saved. In the light of removal of the 9th respondent it was submitted at the time of hearing that an IAS officer was appointed thereafter. We feel that relief sought by the applicants against respondent No. 9 no longer survives. However, the question whether designation/redesignation and creation of parallel posts amounts to a colourable/malalfide exercise of power will be considered along with the case of respondent No. 10 separately. B. Whether the post of Director General, Institute of Management in Government (IMG) is a cadre post and whether it can be headed by non-IAS officers, either in that name or by a redesignating/renaming of the post? Whether the appointment of respondent No. 10 as Director, IMG by redesignation is a colourable exercise of jurisdiction and thus violative of IAS (Cadre) Rules?
93. By Annexure A4, the post of Director General, Institute of Management in Government (IMG) is a cadre post, meant for Indian Administrative Service, Kerala cadre officers. However, by Annexure A58, the post is named as Director. According to the applicants, the 10th respondent who is no longer a cadre officer and has retired 12 years back, from IAS as the Chief Secretary to the State of Kerala has been appointed by Annexure A9 order dated 16.6.2018. By the said order, a post of Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 75 Director was created and the former Chief Secretary was appointed as the Director. It was stated that he will have the rank equivalent to that of Chief Secretary, its salary, status, allowances and other benefits. It was also provided that he will be entitled to salary excluding pension received. The terms of appointment was not mentioned in Annexure A9. Relying on Annexure A17, it was submitted by the applicants that about 30 State Administrative Training Institutes, constituted in various parts of the Country have been recognized nationally by the Department of Personnel & Training. They are the administrative training institutes corresponding to IMG in Kerala. It was stated that the 10th respondent retired as the Chief Secretary of State of Kerala in October, 2011 and thereafter he was appointed as the Vice Chancellor of a University in Kerala for five years. Referring to grounds (g), (h) and (l), it was contended by the applicants that it was solely with the view to circumvent the Indian Administrative Service (Fixation of cadre strength) Regulations, 1955 and to appoint a pleasure appointee of political executive to an IAS cadre post. It was stated that the 10th respondent is 72 years old and not eligible to be appointed as a full time salaried person against a substantive post under the Government or even in any Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 76 University service. It was a colourable, standalone exemption in the case of the 10th respondent which was a pure act of favour in clear violation of IAS (Cadre) Rules. It was contended that the appointment of respondents Nos. 9 and 10, even to posts admitted to be IAS cadre posts in the Kerala State Service can be done only after the de-caderisation of those posts from All India Service, and by notification issued by the Union of India under the Regulations, in consultation with the State Government. No proposal to that effect has been made by the State Government. It was specifically alleged that respondents Nos. 9 and 10 were discharging duties vested with the encadered officers of IAS. Designations of posts encadred by the Union Government upon proposal from State Government during the quinquennial review process of State cadres is undertaken by the Union every five years. It cannot be done away with by way of unilateral amendments or circumvention to encadred post by State Governments at their sweet will, it was contended.
94. The 10th respondent did not appear and file reply statement. On the other hand, the State Government had replied to the allegation in its reply statement. It was stated in the reply statement that the post of Director General of Institute of Management in Government (IMG) is a post Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 77 included in the IAS (Fixation of cadre strength) Regulations, 1955 as notified under Annexure A4. State Government as per Annexure A9 GO created the post of Director, IMG and by the same order the 10th respondent ex-Chief Secretary was appointed in the newly created post. Hence, the appointment of the 10th respondent as Director, IMG was legal and valid. It was submitted that the non-cadre IAS officer is not holding the cadre post of Director General, IMG as alleged.
95. The appointment of respondents Nos. 10 and 9 in IMG and KILA respectively, show how system and Rules were manipulated to accommodate them in top posts. As indicated earlier, the Director, KILA is a cadre post for IAS. In fact, the 9th respondent was originally appointed by Annexure A7 as the Director for a period for three years. Thereafter, he was appointed as Director General by order dated 18.5.2020 for a period of 3 years. On expiry of the initial period of three years it was again extended by 2 years by order dated 18.5.2022. By order dated 2.5.2023 it was extended for one year. By Annexure A2 order, 9th respondent was sought to be relieved. However, his term was extended till such time the new Director General was appointed in KILA. However, he was removed from service in Writ Petition No. 37185 of 2023, at the Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 78 instance of a third party, who had approached the Hon'ble High Court alleging that the 9th respondent was holding the post due to his political connection and his appointment was irregular. Hon'ble High Court by Annexure A31 judgment dated 11.6.2024 removed him from service and declared the post as vacant. This clearly shows that the applicant was holding the post of Director/Director General, KILA for a long period of 7 years. Clearly during the above period, the post of Director, KILA was kept vacant. Since 9th respondent was exercising power, in the absence of a Director, it has to be presumed that he was de facto exercising the function of Director. On the other hand, the 10th respondent was appointed as Director General, IMG by Annexure A9 order dated 16.6.2018 and later the post was redesignated as Director. The 10th respondent is still continuing in that post. No change of the officer has been brought to our notice. In both the cases of KILA as well as IMG, it is claimed by the respondents that the original cadre post was kept vacant for a long period. Evidently it was without intimation to the Central Government. It also seems to be in violation of the Cadre Rules. It is also not clear how financial sanction was obtained for creating such posts, or how they were discharging functions statutorily vested with such posts. Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 79
96. There are reasons to show that respondents Nos. 9 and 10 were discharging duties vested with the IAS encadred posts. The administrative Departments of Kerala Government cannot redesignate the posts of the de jure Chief Executive officer of national important training institutions as KILA and IMG by resorting to clandestine re-designation of cadre posts against law. Such practices, if permitted, would not only weaken the All India Service cadre structure, but would even defeat its very purpose and functions.
97. As evident from the records, in relation to IMG and KILA, the Director General and Director respectively are the Chief Executive Officers. Both the posts were filled up by an illegal process of re- designation. Ineligible persons were inducted to head the two prestigious institutions, which were to be filled up only by IAS cadre posts. During the long period during which respondents Nos. 9 and 10 held the posts above, the cadre posts mentioned in Annexure A4 was kept vacant. Evidently, they were de facto exercising all the functions of Director of KILA and Director General of IMG. Virtually it was a colourable and malicious exercise of executive functions. Virtually respondents Nos. 9 Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 80 and 10 have usurped the posts meant for IAS officers and occupied the post for long period. Regarding respondent No. 9, since he has been removed and decision is available on record, we do not propose to make any further comment on it.
98. Having considered the entire facts in the above perspective, we are inclined to hold that the posts of Excise Commissioner; Director General, Institute of Management in Government; and Director, Kerala Institute of Local Administration are cadre posts as mentioned in Annexure A4 and can only be filled by IAS officers. Any colourable and malafide exercise of administrative function by redesignation, renaming or creation of another equivalent post, simultaneously keeping the encadred post vacant can only be considered as a fraud on the All India Service Act and IAS (Cadre) Rules and liable to be held as bad in law. Accordingly, it is held that the said posts can only be filled up by IAS officers and not by any other person, by a process of re-designation/re-naming of the encadred post. Necessarily, if any of the above post is held by a non-IAS officer as on today, he shall stand removed forthwith. Points answered. Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 81 OA No. 418 of 2025 -
99. The sole applicant in this OA is the 2nd applicant in OA No. 367 of 2023. He was the Agricultural Production Commissioner holding the full additional charge of Principal Secretary, Agriculture Department at the time of institution of OA No. 367 of 2023. While so, the applicant was placed at the disposal of Local Self Government Department to be appointed as the Local Self Government Reforms Commission by a GO of January, 2025. That GO was challenged by the applicant in OA No. 19 of 2025, on the ground that it was not issued in accordance with the IAS Regulations and Rules and various provisions therein. At the time of admission of the OA, after hearing both sides, status quo was ordered to be maintained, directing the applicant therein to continue as the Agricultural Production Commissioner along with the additional charge. That OA was heard and allowed. The transfer order was set aside mainly on two grounds; firstly that Local Self Government Commission falls within the definition of an authority under Rule 6(2)(ii) and not Rule 6(2)(i), as claimed by the respondents and the GO was issued without obtaining the consent of the applicant. The second ground was that the deputation of the applicant as the Local Self Government Reforms Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 82 Commission was in violation of Rule 12(1) of the IAS (Pay) Rules, since the declaration of equivalence made therein was not reasoned by any objective evaluation of nature of responsibilities of both the offices and as such transfer was not in compliance with the true spirit of Rule 12 of IAS (Pay) Rules. He continued in the said post thereafter.
100. While applicant was continuing in office as above, he came across Annexure A10 order dated 30.8.2025 issued by the office of the 4th respondent, of the General Administration Department, by which the 7th respondent, who was on return from leave was posted as the Agricultural Production Commissioner vice the applicant and she was to hold full additional charges of the Principal Secretary, Agriculture Department and Principal Secretary, Transport Department. It was further stated that the applicant was placed at the disposal of the Transport Department for being appointed as the Chairman and Managing Director, Kerala Transport Development Finance Corporation and that the post of Chairman and Managing Director, KTDFC was stated to be equated with that of the Principal Secretary to the Government in the above super time scale. It was further stated in that order that two officers have been separately holding the post of Chairman, KTDFC and Managing Director, Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 83 KTDFC and they stands relieved thereby.
101. Alleging that Annexure A10 was vitiated by several infirmities and that he was not personally served with the order, the present OA was filed. The applicant has a grievance that the applicant was being targeted by the Government for extraneous reasons which has resulted in repeated transfer orders. It was contended that the order by which the applicant was placed at the disposal of Transport Department was issued without convening Civil Services Board and therefore, the appointment of the applicant was per se contemptuous being in willful disobedience of the interim order passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 367 of 2023. It was contended that the equation of posts of Chairman and Managing Director, KTDFC with that of the Principal Secretary to the Government in the above super time IAS pay scale was done without any objective assessment of duties and functions attached to the respective posts. It was further contended that the Government had no power either to nominate a Director as Chairman of the Board of Directors or to appoint a Director as the Managing Director of KTDFC and further contended that by virtue of Memorandum of Association and articles of association of KTDFC, only a member of the Board could be appointed as the Chairman as well as the Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 84 Managing Director of KTDFC. The applicant was not a member of the KTDFC Board.
102. The matter came up for admission on 9.9.2025. After hearing both sides, this Tribunal noted that the very authority of the Government to issue Annexure A10 was under challenge. It was also noted that though by Annexure A17, the Government had reconstituted the Board of Directors of KTDFC, it did not include the applicant. Prima facie, the applicant could not be appointed as the Managing Director and Chairman of KTDFC. Hence, an interim direction was granted that the applicant will continue to hold the post held by him prior to Annexure A10 and the Senior Government Pleader was directed to produce the entire original file that led to Annexure A10, duly paginated in a sealed cover.
103. The OA was taken up on 16.9.2025. On that day, the learned Advocate General appeared and placed before the Bench a GAD order dated 15.9.2025 by which paragraphs Nos. 1 to 3 of the GO dated 30.8.2025, was withdrawn and the applicant was transferred and posted as Principal Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department with effect from 17.9.2025, the next day of posting of the case. Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 85
104. Relying on the above, the learned Advocate General contended that the OA has become infructuous, since the subject matter of the OA, the order by which the applicant was placed at the disposal of the Transport Department was withdrawn. This was opposed by the learned counsel for the applicant contending that the order dated 15.9.2025 placed before the Bench was illegal and not sustainable in so far as it was sub judice and was without complying with the decision in T.S.R. Subramanian's case (supra).
105. It was noted by us that by our order dated 9.9.2025 the operation of Annexure A10 specifically in relation to paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 was stayed till the next posting date. It was further directed that the applicant will continue to hold the post held by him prior to Annexure A10. That order continued till 16.9.2025. In the above circumstances, the order which was placed before us, by which the applicant was transferred and posted as Principal Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department with effect from 17.9.2025 while the order of stay was in force and pre- empting that the stay would be vacated on 16.9.2025, did not appeal to the Bench. It was recorded by us that issuance of such an order without the leave of the Tribunal, when the matter was pending before the Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 86 Tribunal and was under stay may have the propensity of bypassing the order. Accordingly, it was directed that the stay granted by order dated 9.9.2025 will continue and paragraph 3 of the order by which the applicant was transferred and posted as Principal Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department was stayed. However, the premise on which it was stayed was that order was issued while the stay was in force and when the matter was to be taken up and was to have the effect only on the next day of posting. The records directed to be produced were produced in a sealed cover. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned observing that the OA will be heard at the earliest and the parties were directed to complete the pleadings.
106. The OA was amended incorporating a challenge to Annexure A34 GO dated 15.9.2025, by which the earlier GO dated 30.8.2025, which was the subject matter of the OA was withdrawn and Annexure A34 order dated 15.9.2025 by which the applicant was transferred and posted as the Principal Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department with effect from 17.9.2025. Accordingly, the amended OA challenges Annexure A34 dated 15.9.2025 also.
Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 87
107. Since Annexure A10 by which the 7th respondent was posted as Agricultural Production Commissioner vice the applicant herein and Annexure A23 by which the applicant was appointed as the Chairman & Managing Director, of KTDFC was withdrawn, no further grievance can survive in relation to it. Hence, necessarily the entire contentions in the OA should be confined to the legality and correctness of Annexure A34.
108. The contentions of the applicants were answered by detailed pleadings of both sides.
109. We have extensively heard the learned counsel for the applicants, the learned Advocate General, the learned Standing Counsel and the Government pleader.
110. In the light of the pleadings and the subsequent events, the only question that arises is whether Annexure A34 is legally sustainable. One of the grounds projected by the applicants is that the order was issued without convening the CSB. On the other hand, the contention of the respondents was that the applicant had completed the tenure and he was transferred on completion of tenure. Consequently, CSB has no role and according to the respondents, the recommendation of the CSB was liable Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 88 to be taken into consideration only in case wherein the specific orders are passed as per the Rule or in case of pre-mature transfer as contemplated under Rule 7.
111. The above contention is not sustainable in the light of our categoric finding in the connected OA that Civil Services Board is liable to consider all transfers, appointments and postings irrespective of whether it is on completion of the minimum tenure prescribed under Rule 7 or not. In the light of the above clear finding, Annexure A34 is not legally sustainable since it was not preceded by the consideration by the CSB.
112. Another ground on which Annexure A34 was assailed was that it was an order passed pending the proceedings and to that extent it is sub judice. This Tribunal had granted an interim stay of Annexure A10 which was the original subject matter of the OA by which the applicant was transferred as CMD of KTDFC. At the threshold, this Tribunal granted a stay of paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Annexure A10 till 16.9.2025. It was directed that the applicant shall continue to remain as the Agricultural Production Commissioner and Principal Secretary, Department of Agriculture till 16.9.2025. Annexure A34 is an order by which Annexure Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 89 A10 was revoked and the applicant was posted as the Principal Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department with effect from 17.9.2025. The transfer order was issued on 15.9.2025 by which Annexure A10 was revoked. It is pertinent to note that on the date of Annexure A34, Annexure A10 was under a stay. In spite of the stay granted by this Tribunal it was withdrawn by the respondents and the applicant was ordered to be transferred on 15.9.2025 though it was to take effect from 17.9.2025. Evidently this was sub judice.
113. Though the learned Advocate General tried to salvage it by contending that the order was to take effect from 17.9.2025, after the posting on 16.9.2025 and to that extent there was no irregularity in the order. It is evident that respondents proceeded on an assumption that the order will either be vacated on 16.9.2025 or it was presumed that it will not be extended. The respondents could not have anticipated or pre- judged the decision of this Tribunal as on 16.9.2025 and could not have passed such an order. Virtually the date 17.9.2025 was so fixed, to overreach the Tribunal's order of stay. The ideal way would have been to seek the permission of this Tribunal to issue any further order. Though Annexure A34 is not legally sustainable for other reasons, the impropriety Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 90 of issuing such an order in the background of above facts looms large on the face of the proceedings and does not appear to be a justifiable one.
114. Another contention of the learned counsel for the applicants was that Annexure A34 was passed without any Cabinet decision and since two Government Departments were involved, the transfer order could have been issued only after consultation with both the Departments, i.e. the Department in which the applicant was posted and the Department to which he was proposed to be transferred. There is absolutely no record to show that both ministries were consulted.
115. Having considered the entire facts OA is liable to be allowed quashing Annexure A34. However, it will not revive Annexure A10. Pursuant to the direction of this Tribunal, the entire files leading to Annexure A10 was produced. Since Annexure A10 order which was originally under challenge has become redundant, we do not propose to make any further comments on it. The filed produced in the sealed cover is not relied for the purpose of deciding the OA. It is made clear that since the applicant has completed the tenure, this order will not stand in the way of the respondents taking any appropriate decision regarding his Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 91 transfer subject to the compliance of Rules, Regulations and the laws. Point No. 10 -
116. It has already been held in points Nos. 2, 3 and 4 that term "appointment" in Rule 7 of IAS (Cadre) Rules, 2014, includes all transfer, appointments and postings and further that CSB is liable to recommend on transfers even on completion of tenure. The order transferring and posting applicant as Local Self Government Commission in breach of the interim order passed before completion of tenure of the applicant, and in breach of Rule 7 of IAS (Cadre) Rules, 2014, is prima facie an instance of Contempt of Court as alleged in CP© No. 9 of 2025.
117. In CP© No. 41 of 2025, the grievance of the applicant was that by order dated 30.8.2025, applicant was relieved from the post of Agricultural Production Commissioner and additional charge of Principal Secretary, Agricultural Department and placed at the disposal of Transport Department for being appointed as Chairman and Managing Director, Kerala Transport Development Finance Corporation. It was alleged that it was issued in violation of the interim order passed in OA No. 367 of 2023. Since the applicant had not completed the minimum Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 92 tenure, even according to the case of respondents, order was issued in breach of the interim order.
118. Inspite of the above, respondents could not satisfactorily explain the circumstances leading to the transfer order. Hence, there are prima facie materials to proceed against alleged contemners. However, having regard to the fact that the legal issue as to whether transfer on completion of tenure need recommendation of CSB, was considered and set at rest now, and considering the entire facts, we propose to give a quietus to these litigations, on a firm belief that the alleged contemners will follow the Rules in future and be more careful. Hence, we do not propose to proceed with the Contempt Petitions. However, it is made clear that any such violation of order will not be tolerated in future and will be dealt with firmly. Contempt Petitions are accordingly, closed. Point No. 11 -
119. A detailed examination of the facts and materials lead to reliefs to be granted. In the light of the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, both OAs are allowed in part as follows and reliefs are moulded accordingly:
Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30'
93
OA No. 367 of 2023 -
i) It is declared that all appointments, transfers and postings of
IAS officers in Kerala, whether on completion of tenure prescribed under Rule 7(3) of Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 2014 or not, shall be done in consultation with Civil Services Board and in accordance with the procedure contemplated in Rule 7 and relevant provisions of the IAS (Cadre) Rules, 2014 and the Schedule thereunder.
ii) Interim order passed in OA No. 367 of 2023 dated 13.11.2023 is confirmed with modification as above.
iii) It is declared that posts notified as cadre posts by the Union Government as under Annexure A4 shall be filled up only by IAS cadre officers and the 2nd respondent is directed not to fill up such posts by non-IAS officers or retired IAS officers.
iv) 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 Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 94 cadre posts as notified in Annexure A4 and can only be filled up and held by IAS officers and if any of the said posts is held by non-IAS officers/retired IAS officers, they shall stand removed forthwith and posts shall remain vacant.
v) Government shall in above circumstances make alternate arrangements of charge for said posts. However, it is made clear that decisions taken by such officers till today, will stand saved.
vi) It is declared that filling up any IAS cadre post by non-IAS officers/retired IAS officers, by redesignation, renaming or by any other method whatsoever and keeping the IAS cadre post vacant is irregular and deemed to be a colourable exercise of executive functions.
vii) There will be a direction to the State Government to forward regularly, quarterly reports as contemplated under Rule 7(3) of Annexure A2(a) and a corresponding duty on Union Government to ensure that such reports are duly submitted in the prescribed format.
Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30'
95
OA No. 418 of 2025 -
viii) Annexure A34 in OA No. 418 of 2025 is set aside. Annexures A10 and A23 are declared as withdrawn. The applicant will continue to hold the post held by him presently. However, it is made clear that since the applicant has completed minimum tenure, State Government will be free to pass appropriate orders of transfer, if so desired, strictly in accordance with Rules, Regulations and law applicable.
Contempt Petitions Nos. 9 of 2025 and 41 of 2025 -
ix) Both Contempt Petitions are closed subject to observations made above.
120. The Original Applications are allowed in part. No order as to costs.
(V. RAMA MATHEW) (JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
"SA"
Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30'
96
Original Application No. 180/00367/2023
APPLICANTS' ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 - True copy of relevant pages of minutes of the
Association.
Annexure A2 - True copy of the Indian Administrative Service
(Cadre) Rules, 1954 prior to 2014 amendment.
Annexure A2(a)- True copy of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Amendment Rules, 2014 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India.
Annexure A3 - True copy of GO(MS) No. 107/2014/GAD dated 5.5.2014 issued by the 2nd respondent constituting Civil Services Board in Kerala.
Annexure A4 - True copy of notification No. 11031/04/2012- A1511(A) dated 10.12.13.
Annexure A5 - True copy of GO (Rt.) No. 4638/2022/GAD dated 1.11.2022 issued by the office of the Secretary, General Administration Department (AIS-C).
Annexure A6 - True copy of GO (Rt.) No. 2515/2023/GAD dated 6.6.2023 issued by the office of the 7th respondent. Annexure A7 - True copy of GO (Rt.) No. 1445/2017/LSGD dated 5.5.2017 along with English translation.
Annexure A8 - True copy of GO (Rt.) No. 1045/2023/LSGD dated 15.5.2023 issued by the office of the 6th respondent along with English translation.
Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 97 Annexure A9 - True copy of GO (MS) No. 13/2018/P&ARD dated 16.6.2018 along with English translation.
Annexure A10 - True copy of representation dated 16.8.2022 by the 1st addressed to the Chief Minister, Kerala by the 1st applicant association along with English translation. Annexure A11 - True copy of the representation dated 19.6.2023 sent by the 2nd applicant to the 3rd respondent.
Annexure A12 - True copy of GO(Rt) No. 2506/2021/GAD dated 7.7.2021 whereby transfers and postings of 20 IAS officers along with creation of two ex-cadre posts were done without convening of Civil Services Board. Annexure A13 - True copy of GO(Rt) No. 2702/2022/GAD dated 29.6.2022 whereby transfers and postings of 2 IAS officers were done without convening of Civil Services Board.
Annexure A14 - True copy of GO(Rt) No. 3890/2022/GAD dated 9.9.2022 whereby transfers and postings of 6 IAS officers were done without convening of Civil Services Board.
Annexure A15 - True copy of GO(Rt) No. 848/2023/GAD dated 21.2.2023 whereby transfers and postings of 2 IAS officers were done without convening of Civil Services Board.
Annexure A16 - True copy of GO(Rt) No. 2270/2023/GAD dated 22.5.2023 whereby transfers and postings and charge arrangements in respect of 6 IAS officers was done without convening of Civil Services Board.
Annexure A17 - True copy of the list of the 30 State Administrative Training Institutes as recognized nationally by Department of Personnel and Training, Government of Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 98 India and published in their website.
Annexure A18 - True copy of the resolution dated 8.9.2023 adopted by the Executive Committee of the Kerala IAS Officers' Association.
Annexure A19 - True copy of IAS (Cadre) Rules, 1954, including the amendments incorporated to it as per notification No. 11033/1(A)2014-AIS-II dated 13.4.2016.
Annexure A20 - True copy of Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954.
Annexure A21 - True copy of notification NO. 18/17/2011-PIL/DP dated 21.3.2014 issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personnel Division), Government of Manipur constituting the Civil Services Board.
Annexure A22 - True copy of GO(MS) No. 13 dated 20.2.2014 issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personnel Wing), Government of Puducherry.
Annexure A23 - True copy of notification NO. PER.27/77/Pt/9 dated 5.3.2014 issued by the Personnel and AR(A) Department, Government of Meghalaya.
Annexure A24 - True copy of order No. 6/189/02-PER/Part/369 dated 19.5.2014 issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, the Union Territory of Daman and Diu and Dadra and Nagar Haveli.
Annexure A25 - True copy of the Government resolution No. AIS-
1014/CR815/2014/X dated 6.8.2016 issued by the General Administration Department, Government of Maharashtra.
Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 99 Annexure A26 - True copy of notification No. F. No. A/538/22-GAD SEC-Part(6) dated 13.8.2024 issued by the General Administration Department of the Union Territory of Ladakh.
Annexure A27 - True copy of memorandum No. AR-3/GEN-61/2001 dated 27.3.2001 issued by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Nagaland.
Annexure A28 - True copy of Civil List evidencing the authorized strength of Indian Police Service (Kerala cadre) effective from 18.8.2022 framed under Schedule to the IPS (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regulations, 1955. Annexure A29 - True copy of communication No. 11030/24/2008-AIS-
II dated 16.6.2014 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel, Government of India.
Annexure A30 - True copy of judgment dated 29.10.2024 in OP (KAT) No. 447 of 2024 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala.
Annexure A31 - True copy of the judgment dated 11.6.2024 in WP© 37185 of 2023 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala.
Annexure A32 - True copy of GO(Rt) GO(Rt) No. 1225/2024/LSGD dated 5.7.2024 issued by the Local Self Government Department, Government of Kerala (along with hid English translation).
Annexure A33 - True copy of GO(Rt) 3267/2025/GAD dated 29.7.2025 issued by the General Administration (AIS A) Department, Government of Kerala.
Annexure A34 - True copy of Kerala board of Revenue Act, 1957. Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 100 Annexure A35 - True copy of Kerala board of Revenue Abolition Act, 1996.
Annexure A36 - True copy of communication No. 11030/09/2019-AIS-
II dated 3.3.2020 issued by the DoP&T, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India.
Annexure A37 - True copy of instructions at AIS-II(Pay) issued by Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India on 14.10.2022.
Annexure A38 - True copy of GO(Rt) No. 241/2019/P&ARD dated 6.6.2019 (along with its English translation). Annexure A39 - True copy of the proposal placed before the Civil Services Board held on 29.11.2023 regarding transfer/posting/additional charge of 14 IAS officers. Annexure A40 - True copy of the proposal placed before the Civil Services Board held on 6.2.2024 regarding transfer/posting/additional charge of 4 IAS officers. Annexure A41 - True copy of the minutes of the meeting of Civil Services Board held on 6.2.2024.
Annexure A42 - True copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Civil Services Board held on 16.5.2024 evidencing the fact that out of the 4 officers in the consi3eation of CSB only three had completed the two years minimum tenure.
Annexure A43 - True copy of the proposal placed before the Civil Services Bord held on 30.5.2024.
Annexure A44 - True copy of the minutes of the Civil Services Board held on 30.5.2024.
Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 101 Annexure A45 - True copy of the proposal placed before the Civil Services Bord held on 15.6.2024 regarding transfer/posting/additional charge of 6 IAS officers. Annexure A46 - True copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Civil Services Bord held on 15.6.2024 regarding transfer/posting/additional charge of 6 IAS officers. Annexure A47 - True copy of the proposal placed before the Civil Services Bord held on 28.6.2024 regarding transfer/posting/additional charge of 6 IAS officers. Annexure A48 - True copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Civil Services Bord held on 28.6.2024 regarding transfer/posting/additional charge of 6 IAS officers. Annexure A49 - True copy of the proposal placed before the Civil Services Bord held on 3.7.2024 regarding transfer/posting/additional charge of 5 IAS officers. Annexure A50 - True copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Civil Services Bord held on 3.7.2024 regarding transfer/posting/additional charge of 5 IAS officers. Annexure A51 - True copy of the proposal placed before the Civil Services Bord held on 24.8.2024 regarding transfer/posting/additional charge of 16 IAS officers. Annexure A52 - True copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Civil Services Bord held on 24.8.2024 regarding transfer/posting/additional charge of 16 IAS officers. Annexure A53 - True copy of the proposal placed before the Civil Services Bord held on 28.9.2024 regarding transfer/posting/additional charge of 2 IAS officers. Annexure A54 - True copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Civil Services Bord held on 28.9.2024 regarding Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 102 transfer/posting/additional charge of 2 IAS officers. Annexure A55 - True copy of GO(Ms) No. 10/2020/LSGD dated 6.1.2020 (along with English translation) issued by the Department of Local Self Government, Government of Kerala.
Annexure A56 - True copy of GO(Rt) 909/2020/LSG dated 18.5.2020 issued by the Department of Local Self Government (1B) Department (along with English translation). Annexure A57 - True copy of GO(Rt) No. 1243/2022/LSGD dated 18.5.2022 issued by the Local Self Government (1B) (along with English translation).
Annexure A58 - True copy of notification NO. 11031/01/2004-AIS-
II(A) dated 16.8.2007 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India showing the posts borne on and the composition of the Indian Administrative Service Kerala Cadre.
Annexure A59 - True copy of the home page of the Department of Land Revenue, Government of Kerala.
Annexure A60 - True copy of GO(P) No. 345/98/RD dated 23.6.1998 issued by the Revenue (G) Department.
Annexure A61 - True copy of GO(P)178/2015/TD dated 3.10.2015 issued by the Taxes (F) Department, Government of Kerala.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES Nil Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 103 Contempt Petition No. 180/00009/2025 in Original Application No. 180/00367/2023 Annexure P1 - Certified copy of the order passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal in OA No. 367/2023 dated 13.11.2023.
Annexure P2 - True copy of GO(Rt) No. 613/2023/GAD dated 7.2.2023 issued by the General Administration (AIS A) Department whereby applicant was transferred and posted as Agricultural Production Commissioner.
Annexure P3 - True copy of GO(Rt) No. 114/2025/GAD dated 9.1.2025 issued by the General Administration (AIS A) Department placing the applicant at the disposal of LSGD for being appointed as Local Self Government Commission.
Annexure P4 - True copy of GO(Ms) No. 7/2025/LSGD dated 10.1.2025 issued by LSG(R&D) Department (along with English translation) forming the LSG Reforms Commission.
Annexure P5 - True copy of letter NO. AIS-A1/11/2025-GAD dated 16.1.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent to the petitioner. Annexure P6 - True copy of GO(Rt) No. 185/2025/GAD dated 16.1.2025 issued by the Additional Secretary, General Administration Department.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES Annexure R1(a) - GO(Rt) No. 2965/2022/GAD dated 14.7.2022. Annexure R1(b) - GO(Rt) No. 5582/20-22/GAD dated 24.12.2022.
Contempt Petition No. 180/00009/2025 in Original Application No. 180/00367/2023 Annexure P1 - Certified copy of the order passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal in OA No. 367/2023 dated 13.11.2023.
Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 104 Annexure P2 - True copy of GO(Rt) No. 613/2023/GAD dated 7.2.2023 issued by the General Administration (AIS A) Department whereby applicant was transferred and posted as Agricultural Production Commissioner.
Annexure P3 - True copy of GO(Rt) No. 114/2025/GAD dated 9.1.2025 issued by the General Administration (AIS A) Department placing the applicant at the disposal of LSGD for being appointed as Local Self Government Commission.
Annexure P4 - True copy of GO(Ms) No. 7/2025/LSGD dated 10.1.2025 issued by LSG(R&D) Department (along with English translation) forming the LSG Reforms Commission.
Annexure P5 - True copy of letter No. AIS-A1/11/2025-GAD dated 16.1.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent to the petitioner. Annexure P6 - True copy of GO(Rt) No. 3802/2025/GAD dated 30.8.2025 by which the applicant has been placed at the disposal of the Transport Department for being appointed as Chairman and Managing Director.
Annexure P7 - True copy of GO(Rt) No. 384/2025/TRANS dated 1.9.2025 issued by the Department of Transport. Annexure P8 - True copy of interim order dated 9.9.2025 in OA N. 418 of 2025.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES Nil Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 105 Original Application No. 180/00418/2025 APPLICANT'S ANNEXURES Annexure A1: True copy of G.O.(Rt) No.5582/2022/GAD dated 24.12.2022 issued by the 4th respondent, posting the applicant as Principal Secretary, Agriculture Department.
Annexure A2: True copy of G.O.(Rt) No. 613/2023/GAD dated 07.02.2023 issued by the 4th respondent by which the applicant was transferred and posted as Agricultural Production Commissioner, with full additional charge of Principal Secretary, Agricultural Department. Annexure A3: True copy of the Notification No. 11031/04/2012-AIS-
II (A) dated 18.02.2013 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India.
Annexure A4. True copy of G.O. (Rt) No. 114/2025/GAD dated 09.01.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent.
Annexure A5 - True copy of G.O. (Rt)No. 185/2025/GAD dated 16.01.2025 issued by the 4th respondent.
Annexure A6- True copy of the final order dated 03.06.2025 in OA 19/2025 passed by this Hon'ble tribunal.
Annexure A7- True copy of the reply statement filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 4 in amended OA 19/2025 (without annexures).
Annexure A8- True copy of the note No. 84/PS/APC/Agri./2025 dated 27.08.2025 submitted to the 3rd respondent by the applicant in the official letter head of Principal Secretary and Agricultural Production Commissioner. Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 106 Annexure A9- True copy of the note No. 86/PS/APC/Agri./2025 dated 30.08.2025 submitted to the 3rd respondent by the applicant in the official letter of Principal Secretary and Agricultural Production Commissioner.
Annexure A10- True copy of G.O. (Rt) No. 3802/2025/GAD dated 30.08.2025 issued by the Office of the 4th respondent. Annexure A11- True copy of Indian Administrative (Cadre) Rules, 1954 along with amendment, 2014.
Annexure A12- True copy of the relevant pages of G.O. (P) No. 131/2022/Fin dated 29.10.2022.
Annexure A13- True copy of G.O(Ms)No.107/2014/GAD dated 5.5.2014 issued by the General Administration Department.
Annexure A14- True copy of order dated 13.11.2023 in OA 367/2023. Annexure A15- True copy of IAS (Pay) Rules,2016. Annexure A16- True copy of the Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association of Kerala Transport Development Finance Corporation.
Annexure A17- True copy of G.O(Rt)No.323/2025/Trans dated 18.7.2025.
Annexure A18- True copy of the communication dated 30.8.2025 issued by the 7th respondent to the Accountant General.
Annexure A19- True copy of the Report of Transfer of Charge in Form 7 of Kerala Financial Code dated 30.8.2025 unilaterally signed by the 7th respondent.
Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 107 Annexure A20- True copy of the relevant pages of Kerala Financial Code, Volume I containing Article 81.
Annexure A21- True copy of relevant pages of Kerala Service Rules which contains Appendix iii of Part I. Annexure A22- True copy of judgment in Ramavarma Thirumalpadu v. State of Kerala, 1985 KHC 405.
Annexure A23- True copy of G.O. (Rt) No. 384/ 2025/ TRANS dated 01.09.2025 issued by the Special Secretary, Transport (A) Department.
Annexure A24 - True copy of the screenshot of the email forwarded to the applicant from the official email of Transport (A) Department at 15:41 pm on 02.09.2025 attaching therewith G.O. (Rt) No. 384/2025/TRANS dated 30.08.2025 issued by the Special Secretary, Transport (A) Department.
Annexure A25- True copy of G.O.(Rt) No. 3848/2025/GAD dated 02.09.2025 issued by the General Administration Department.
Annexure A26- True copy of screenshot of email dated 02.09.2025 sent from the General Administration Department attaching therewith Annexure A25.
Annexure A27- True copy of letter No.TVM.DOS.SED.No.S569/2.3.054/2022-23 dated 3.8.2022 issued by RBI directing to stop all NBFI operations due to its poor net own fund status.
Annexure A28- True copy of letter no.TRANS-A1/116/2020-TRANS dated 4.1.2021 by which decision to wind up KTDFC was taken.
Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 108 Annexure A29- True copy of Government letter No.TRANS-
A1/304/2017-TRANS dated 11-10-2018.
Annexure A30- True copy of the relevant pages of Part II of Rules of Business of the Government of Kerala which contains the Distribution of Business in the Agriculture Department.
Annexure A31- True copy of the note bearing No.85/CA/APC/Agri/2025 dated 10.9.2025 sent by the applicant to the Chief Secretary ,with a copy to the 7th respondent as well.
Annexure A32- True copy of the note bearing No.86/CA/APC/Agri/2025 to the Special Secretary, E& IT Department requesting to restore the applicant e-office and the official e-mail ID of the APC and Principal Secretary(Agri) dated 10.09.2025.
Annexure A33- True copy of the Note 12.9.25 signed to by the Officer on Special Duty in the office of Agricultural Production Commissioner and Principal Secretary (Agriculture). Annexure A34 - True copy of the G.O(Rt) No. 3987/ 2025/ GAD dated 15.9.2025 issued by the General Administration Department.
Annexure A35- True copy of the screenshot of the mail delivered in the applicant's mail box on 15.9.2025 from the mail ID of General Administration Department.
Annexure A36 - True copy of IAS (Cadre) Rules, 1954, including the amendments incorporated to it as per notification No. 11033/1(A)2014-AIS-II dated 13.4.2016.
Annexure A37 - True copy of Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954.
Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 109 Annexure A38 - True copy of notification NO. 18/17/2011-PIL/DP dated 21.3.2014 issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personnel Division), Government of Manipur constituting the Civil Services Board.
Annexure A39 - True copy of GO(MS) No. 13 dated 20.2.2014 issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personnel Wing), Government of Puducherry.
Annexure A40 - True copy of notification NO. PER.27/77/Pt/9 dated 5.3.2014 issued by the Personnel and AR(A) Department, Government of Meghalaya.
Annexure A41 - True copy of order No. 6/189/02-PER/Part/369 dated 19.5.2014 issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, the Union Territory of Daman and Diu and Dadra and Nagar Haveli.
Annexure A42 - True copy of the Government resolution No. AIS-
1014/CR815/2014/X dated 6.8.2016 issued by the General Administration Department, Government of Maharashtra.
Annexure A43 - True copy of notification No. F. No. A/538/22-GAD SEC-Part(6) dated 13.8.2024 issued by the General Administration Department of the Union Territory of Ladakh.
Annexure A44 - True copy of memorandum No. AR-3/GEN-61/2001 dated 27.3.2001 issued by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Nagaland.
Annexure A45 - True copy of the proposal placed before the Civil Services Board held on 29.11.2023 regarding transfer/posting/additional charge of 14 IAS officers. Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 110 Annexure A46 - True copy of the proposal placed before the Civil Services Board held on 6.2.2024 regarding transfer/posting/additional charge of 4 IAS officers. Annexure A47 - True copy of the minutes of the meeting of Civil Services Board held on 6.2.2024.
Annexure A48 - True copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Civil Services Board held on 16.5.2024 evidencing the fact that out of the 4 officers in the consideration of CSB only three had completed the two years minimum tenure.
Annexure A49 - True copy of the proposal placed before the Civil Services Bord held on 30.5.2024.
Annexure A50 - True copy of the minutes of the Civil Services Board held on 30.5.2024.
Annexure A51 - True copy of the proposal placed before the Civil Services Bord held on 15.6.2024 regarding transfer/posting/additional charge of 6 IAS officers. Annexure A52 - True copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Civil Services Bord held on 15.6.2024 regarding transfer/posting/additional charge of 6 IAS officers. Annexure A53 - True copy of the proposal placed before the Civil Services Bord held on 28.6.2024 regarding transfer/posting/additional charge of 6 IAS officers. Annexure A54 - True copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Civil Services Bord held on 28.6.2024 regarding transfer/posting/additional charge of 6 IAS officers. Annexure A55 - True copy of the proposal placed before the Civil Services Bord held on 3.7.2024 regarding Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 111 transfer/posting/additional charge of 5 IAS officers. Annexure A56 - True copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Civil Services Bord held on 3.7.2024 regarding transfer/posting/additional charge of 5 IAS officers. Annexure A57 - True copy of the proposal placed before the Civil Services Bord held on 24.8.2024 regarding transfer/posting/additional charge of 16 IAS officers. Annexure A58 - True copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Civil Services Bord held on 24.8.2024 regarding transfer/posting/additional charge of 16 IAS officers. Annexure A59 - True copy of the proposal placed before the Civil Services Bord held on 28.9.2024 regarding transfer/posting/additional charge of 2 IAS officers. Annexure A60 - True copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Civil Services Bord held on 28.9.2024 regarding transfer/posting/additional charge of 2 IAS officers. Annexure A61 - True copy of request dated 12.2.2025 made by the applicant to the Public Information Officer, General Administration - AIS(A) Department.
Annexure A62 - True copy of covering letter dated 18.3.2025 addressed to the applicant by the State Public Information Officer and Under Secretary to Government while forwarding Annexures A45 to A60.
Annexure A63 - True copy of GO(Rt) No. 2034/2023/GAD dated 8.5.2023 issued by the General Administration (AIS- A) Department.
Annexure A64 - True copy of GO(Rt) No. 2479/2025/GAD dated 9.6.2025 issued by the General Administration (AIS- A) Department.
Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30' 112 Annexure A65 - True copy of the Articles of Association of Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES Annexure R2(a) - True copy of the judgment of the Kerala High Court reported in 2008 (4) KHC 596.
Annexure R2(b) - True copy of the order GO (Rt) No. 79/2021/GAD dated 6.1.2021.
Annexure R2(c) - True copy of the order GO (Rt) No. 2642/2021/GAD dated 17.7.2021.
Annexure R2(d) - True copy of the order GO(Rt) No. 2855/2020/GAD dated 17.9.2020 marked as.
Annexure R2(e) - True copy of the Transit register showing the factum of service of Annexure A10 to the office of the applicant. Annexure R6(a) - True copy of the fee receipt for e-form MGT-7 submitted for KTDFC for the financial year ending on 2024 dated 17.1.2025.
Annexure R6(b) - True copy of the email from Ministry of Corporate Affairs stating E-form MGT-7 accepted on file dated 17.1.2025. Annexure R6(c) - True copy of the Company Information of KTDFC as seen on Ministry of Corporate Affairs website showing company status as "active" dated 21.1.2025.
-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-
Sebastian Antony 2026.03.06 11:43:30+05'30'