Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Vartika Katiyar Ips vs Department Of Personnel & ... on 13 February, 2026
1
OA.No.170/00027/2026/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00027/2026
ORDER RESERVED ON 06.02.2026
DATE OF ORDER: 13.02.2026
CORAM:
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
Smt. Vartika Katiyar
Aged about 39 years
IPS, (Deputy Inspector General of Police),
Office of DIG Ballary Range,
Brucepet, Bellari 583 101 .... Applicant
(By Shri Dhyan Chinnappa, Senior Advocate along with Ms.
Monica Patil, Advocate and Ms. Sameeksha Pradhan, Advocate)
Vs.
1. The State of Karnataka
Dept. of Personnel and Administrative Reforms
Under Secretary to Government
Vikasa Soudha, Bangalore 560 001
Represented by its Secretary
2. Dr. P.S. Harsha
IPS (Inspector General of Police)
# 0 105 HMT Township
Jalahalli, Bangalore 560 013 ...Respondents
(By Shri Reuben Jacob, Additional Advocate General- through
video conference along with Shri Mahantesh Shettar, Additional
Government Advocate for Respondent No. 1,
Shri P.S. Rajagopal, Senior Advocate along with Shri Jayanth Dev
Kumar, Advocate for Respondent No. 2)
KAVYA SHREE K
CAT, Bangalore
2026.02.13 15:17:22+05'30'
2
OA.No.170/00027/2026/CAT/BANGALORE
ORDER
PER: JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
This application is filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
"(I) Quash the impugned transfer order dated 07.01.2026, issued by the Respondent vide Government Order No. e-DPAR 07 SPS 2026 (Annexure-A5), as being arbitrary, illegal, disproportionate, and violative of the principles of natural justice and service rules. (II) Pass any order of consequential relief or any other appropriate order or direction in favour of the applicant herein, as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice and equity."
FACTS OF THE CASE:
2. Briefly stated the facts are that the applicant is a 2010 batch officer of the Indian Police Service. By Government Notification dated 14.07.2025, the applicant was transferred from the post of Deputy Inspector General and Additional Commandant General, Home Guards and Ex-officio Additional Director, Civil Defence, Bengaluru and posted as Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ballari Range in the downgraded vacant post. She was relieved and assumed charge on 15.07.2025 and was since then discharging the duties. Within a few months of assuming charge, KAVYA SHREE K CAT, Bangalore 2026.02.13 15:17:22+05'30' 3 OA.No.170/00027/2026/CAT/BANGALORE the 1st respondent issued another transfer order dated 07.01.2026 transferring the applicant from the post of Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ballari Range to Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement in the upgraded vacant post as Deputy Inspector General of Police. Being aggrieved by the said transfer order dated 07.01.2026, the applicant has preferred this OA.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT:
3. Learned senior counsel Shri Dhyan Chinnappa appearing for the applicant submitted that the impugned transfer order dated 07.01.2026 is ex-facie illegal and ultra vires the provisions of the Indian Police Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 ('Rules' for short) as it violates the statutory protection of minimum tenure guaranteed to cadre officers. In terms of Rule 7 (c) (ii), a cadre officer appointed to a post for which tenure has been prescribed is entitled to hold such post for the minimum assured period of two years except in narrowly defined contingencies such as promotion, retirement, deputation outside the state or long-term training. The applicant does not fall within any of these exceptional categories. The premature displacement of the applicant, without any legally permissible justification violates the mandatory statutory protection KAVYA SHREE K CAT, Bangalore 2026.02.13 15:17:22+05'30' 4 OA.No.170/00027/2026/CAT/BANGALORE of tenure. Referring to Rule 7 (c) (iii), learned senior counsel submitted that the said rule mandates that any transfer of a cadre officer before completion of the prescribed minimum tenure can be effected only on the basis of the recommendation of the Committee on Minimum Tenure/Civil Services Board, accompanied by reasons recorded in writing justifying the inevitability of such transfer. The existence of such a recommendation is a condition precedent but the 1st respondent has neither convened the said Committee nor obtained any recommendation, nor have recorded any reasons whatsoever to justify the premature transfer.
4. Learned senior counsel referring to the definition clause under Rule 2 of the Rules, submitted that Rule 2 (a) 'cadre officer' means a member of the Indian Police Service. The use of the word 'means' indicates that definition is a hard and fast definition and no other meaning can be assigned to the expression than is put down in the definition. The word 'includes' when used, enlarges the meaning of the expression defined so as to comprehend not only such things as they signify according to their natural input but also those things which the clause declares that they shall include. The expression used in the definition clause is only the word 'means' and not 'means and includes'. Hence, the applicant being a member of the KAVYA SHREE K CAT, Bangalore 2026.02.13 15:17:22+05'30' 5 OA.No.170/00027/2026/CAT/BANGALORE Indian Police Service, is a cadre officer. In support of this legal proposition, reliance was placed on P. Kasilingam and Others vs. P.S.G. College of Technology and Others 1. As per 2 (b) of the Rules, cadre post means any of the post specified under Item 1 of each cadre of Schedule to the Indian Police Service (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regulations 1955 ('Regulations' for short).
Inspector General of Police is a cadre post in Ballari Range. The applicant was transferred and posted in a downgraded post as Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ballari Range.
5. Learned senior counsel argued that Rule 8 refers to cadre and ex-cadre posts to be filled by cadre officers and Rule 9 to temporary appointment of non-cadre officer to cadre posts. Learned senior counsel made an endeavour to distinguish between cadre post, ex-cadre post and non-cadre officer to cadre posts. Thus, the learned counsel argued that Rule 9 (1) (a) being applicable only to non-cadre officer to cadre post, i.e., Non-IPS officer to cadre post, the applicant being a cadre officer, being the member of the Indian Police Service, Rule 9 (1) (a) is not applicable to the present facts of the case.
1 (1995) Supp 2 SCC 348 KAVYA SHREE K CAT, Bangalore 2026.02.13 15:17:22+05'30' 6 OA.No.170/00027/2026/CAT/BANGALORE
6. Learned senior counsel further argued that several Deputy Inspector General of Police cadre officers who were transferred and posted to downgraded Inspector General of Police post have served or serving without compliance of Rule 9, especially 1st and 2nd proviso to Rule 9 (1) (a), Proviso to Rule 9 (1) (b) and Rule 9 (3). A list of such officers is placed on record. Strong reliance was placed on section 20F of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 ('Police Act' for short) regarding minimum tenure prescribed. Judgment of the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of T. Suneel Kumar, IPS vs. State of Karnataka and Others 2 has been relied upon to contend that the impugned transfer order is not in conformity with the statutory provision - Section 20B of the Police Act. Further, it was argued that the applicant has relocated her 12 year old son to Ballari for schooling subsequent to her transfer vide Notification dated 14.07.2025. She is the primary caregiver of her 86 year old grandfather suffering from cancer. The impugned transfer order is causing grave personal hardship, emotional distress and irreparable prejudice to the applicant and her family. 2 WP No. 13995/2013 connected with WP Nos. 10988-91/2013 (DD: 26.03.2013) KAVYA SHREE K CAT, Bangalore 2026.02.13 15:17:22+05'30' 7 OA.No.170/00027/2026/CAT/BANGALORE SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NO. 1:
7. Learned Additional Advocate General representing the Respondent No. 1 - State of Karnataka submitted that the applicant was posted on 14.07.2025 as Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ballari Range in the downgraded vacant post. In terms of the cadre strength and composition of Karnataka in Indian Police Service, Government of India's Notification dated 29.09.2022, one post of Inspector General of Police, Ballari Range, Ballari is the cadre post and no Deputy Inspector General of Police post is available in Ballari Range as per Item 1 of the schedule. Thus, Rule 7 (c) (ii) and (iii) are not applicable. Applicant - Deputy Inspector General of Police was posted to the downgraded vacant post of Inspector General of Police, Ballari Range, Ballari only as a temporary arrangement. An officer of the rank of Super Time Scale (Deputy Inspector General of Police) Level - 13A was posted in the vacant post which is in the rank of Super Time Scale (Inspector General of Police) Level-14 since there was a shortage in the rank of Inspector General of Police level officers in the cadre. Respondent No. 2, an officer of the 2004 batch (Inspector General of Police Level) returned to the cadre after completion of study leave and reported to government for posting on 29.12.2025. On 01.01.2026, a clash KAVYA SHREE K CAT, Bangalore 2026.02.13 15:17:22+05'30' 8 OA.No.170/00027/2026/CAT/BANGALORE broke out in the backdrop of the unveiling program of statue of Valmiki Maharshi at SP Circle, Ballari City leading to untoward incidents including stone pelting resulting in death of one person.
This was a sensitive law and order situation causing public unrest. In such a position of heightened tensions, it was necessary that a senior officer occupied the cadre post of Inspector General of Police, Ballari Range in order to take control of the law and order situation. In view of the administrative and situational exigencies, Respondent No. 2 was posted as Inspector General of Police, Ballari Range and the applicant was posted as Deputy Inspector General of Police, Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement in the upgraded vacant post vide the impugned order. Respondent No. 2 has already taken charge as Inspector General of Police, Ballari Range on 07.01.2026 and is discharging his roles and functions effectively. The impugned transfer Notification must not be viewed as a routine administrative exercise but it must be viewed in the eyes of the prevailing law and order situation as well as the relevant provisions of the Rules necessitating the posting of a suitable cadre officer in a sensitive post. Strong reliance was placed on Rule 9 (1)
(a) and the proviso thereof. It was further argued that subsequent to the judgment passed in T. Suneel Kumar, supra, the provisions of KAVYA SHREE K CAT, Bangalore 2026.02.13 15:17:22+05'30' 9 OA.No.170/00027/2026/CAT/BANGALORE Rule 20B have been amended, hence T. Suneel Kumar case, supra, would not come to the assistance of the applicant.
8. Learned counsel further argued that two years tenure under Section 20F of the Police Act is not applicable to the case on hand. On combined reading of Rule 2 (a) & (b) with Rule 9 (1) (a) and the proviso thereof, no such tenure is applicable to the applicant. Reliance was placed on the following judgments:
1) S.K. Nausad Rahaman and Others vs. Union of India and Others3
2) Union of India and Others vs. Janardhan Debanath and Another4
9. Learned counsel contended that on considering the sensitivity of the situation, overall stock was taken including the wide ramifications involved in law and order situation by the State Government. The Respondent No. 2, cadre officer being found suitable for the cadre post of Inspector General of Police, on his return from study leave who was waiting for posting, has been 3 (2022) 12 SCC Page 1, Para 24 4 (2004) 4 SCC 245 KAVYA SHREE K CAT, Bangalore 2026.02.13 15:17:22+05'30' 10 OA.No.170/00027/2026/CAT/BANGALORE posted by transferring the applicant which is in the larger public interest and the same cannot be found fault with. On 06.02.2026, at the time of hearing of the matter, learned counsel made an attempt to point out that the applicant interfered with the administrative work of the Respondent No. 2 by giving threatening instructions to the concerned Section Officer and Assistant Administrative Officer of the Ballari Range, thereby committed contempt of court during pendency of this matter. The misconduct of the applicant has to be considered in deciding this matter.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NO.2
10. Learned senior counsel Shri P.S. Rajagopal representing the Respondent No. 2 submitted that the Respondent No. 2 joined the services of the Indian Police Service as Assistant Superintendent of Police in 2004 and was assigned Karnataka Cadre. The Respondent No. 2's meritorious and diligent work has been recognized with the Respondent No. 2 reaching higher ranking of Inspector General of Police. The applicant, who does not belong to the rank of the Inspector General of Police, came to be posted as Deputy Inspector General of police in Ballari Range, in a downgraded vacant post vide Notification dated 14.07.2025. After a KAVYA SHREE K CAT, Bangalore 2026.02.13 15:17:22+05'30' 11 OA.No.170/00027/2026/CAT/BANGALORE clash erupted in Ballari between workers of two political groups, resulting in high tension escalating law and order situation, State Government, in the interest of public and also to maintain law and order in the range, posted the Respondent No. 2 cadre officer who is higher in rank, seniority and experience than the applicant who was awaiting posting after returning from his study leave, to the cadre post at Ballari Range. Rule 7 (c) applies to a cadre post. The post of Deputy Inspector General of Police is not a cadre post under the Regulations. No protection can be claimed by the officer to the cadre post of Inspector General of Police. In terms of Rule 9, the applicant not being a cadre officer in the rank of Inspector General of police, has only made way for the cadre officer in that rank. The impugned order of transfer is in accordance with section 20F which empowers the State Government to transfer officer, before completion of minimum tenure, if any, to the post of the applicant. The impugned order of transfer is strictly in accordance with section 20F of the Police Act and made in public interest and administrative reasons. Rule 7 (c) (ii) and (iii) are not attracted to the facts of the present case.
11. Inviting the attention of the Bench to Rule 2 of the Rules, emphasising on the expression used "unless the context otherwise KAVYA SHREE K CAT, Bangalore 2026.02.13 15:17:22+05'30' 12 OA.No.170/00027/2026/CAT/BANGALORE requires", learned counsel submitted that a harmonious construction has to be given to Rule 2 (a) and 2 (b) of the Rules by reading both the clauses together. Rule 7 being applicable only to the cadre post, the same is not applicable to the facts on hand. In support of his contentions, learned senior counsel has placed reliance on the following judgments:
1) Printers (Mysore) Ltd. And Another vs. Asstt. Commercial Tax Officer and Others.5
2) Palm Groves Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Magar Girme and Gaikwad Associates etc.6
3) Reserve Bank of India vs. Peerless General Finance and Investment company limited and others and connected matters 7 Thus, justifying the impugned order, posting of Respondent No. 2, a cadre officer, to the cadre post, learned counsel sought for dismissal of the OA. In addition to this, learned senior counsel made an endeavour to refer to the documents placed on record vide Memo dated 06.02.2026 to contend that the applicant by her conduct has committed contempt of court during the pendency of the present proceedings and the contemnor has no right to be heard, and as such, the OA is liable to be dismissed outrightly.5
(1994) 2 SCC 434 6 (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1790 7 (1987) 1 SCC 424 KAVYA SHREE K CAT, Bangalore 2026.02.13 15:17:22+05'30' 13 OA.No.170/00027/2026/CAT/BANGALORE ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION:
12. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
13. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is necessary to refer to the Scheme of the Rules made by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-Section (1) of Section 3 of the All India Services Act, 1951 after consultation with the Governments of the States concerned, which goes to the root of the matter.
14. Rule 2 of the Rules reads thus:
"2. Definitions.--In these rules unless the context other wise requires, -
2(a) 'Cadre officer' means a member of the Indian Police Service:
2(b) 'Cadre post' means any of the posts specified under item 1 of each cadre in schedule to the Indian Police Service (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regulations, 1955.
2(c) xxxx 2(d) xxxx"
KAVYA SHREE K CAT, Bangalore 2026.02.13 15:17:22+05'30' 14 OA.No.170/00027/2026/CAT/BANGALORE
15. Rule 3 deals with the Constitution of Cadres and the same reads thus:
"3(1) There shall be constituted for each State or group of States an Indian Police Service Cadre.
3(2) The Cadre so constituted for a State or a group of States are hereinafter referred to as a 'State Cadre' and a 'Joint Cadre' respectively."
16. In terms of Rule 4 (1), the strength and composition of each of the cadres constituted under Rule 3 shall be determined by the regulations made by the Central Government in consultation with the State Governments in this behalf and until such regulations are made, shall be as in force immediately before the commencement of these rules.
17. In terms of Rule 7 - Postings, all appointments to cadre posts shall be made:-
"7 (a) xxxx 7 (b) xxxx 7 (c) (i) xxxx 7(c)(ii) A cadre officer, appointed to any post for which the tenure has been so determined shall hold the minimum tenure as prescribed except in the event of promotion, retirement, deputation outside the State or training exceeding two months.
KAVYA SHREE K CAT, Bangalore 2026.02.13 15:17:22+05'30' 15 OA.No.170/00027/2026/CAT/BANGALORE 7(c)(iii) An officer may be transferred before the minimum prescribed tenure only on the recommendation of a Committee on Minimum Tenure as specified in the Schedule annexed to these rules."
18. Rule 12 reads thus:
"12. Interpretation--If any question arises as to the interpretation of these rules, the Central Government shall decide the same."
19. To examine whether 7(c)(ii) and 7(c)(iii) of the Rules are attracted in the present case or not, interpretation of the definition clause plays a significant role. Normal principle of statutory interpretation is that when the words used in the statute are clear and unambiguous, the same should be given their normal meaning without adding or rejecting any word. However, there is an exception to this general rule. In case, the Court finds that the provision is vague and ambiguous or the normal meaning may lead to confusion, absurdity or repugnancy with other provisions, the court may by using the interpretative tools, set right the situation by adding or omitting or substituting words in the statute. (vide Palm Groves Cooperative Housing Society Limited, supra). KAVYA SHREE K CAT, Bangalore 2026.02.13 15:17:22+05'30' 16 OA.No.170/00027/2026/CAT/BANGALORE
20. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Peerless General Finance and Investment company limited and others and connected matters, supra, observed thus:
"33. Interpretation must depend on the text and the context. They are the bases of interpretation. One may well say if the text is the texture, context is what gives the colour. Neither can be ignored. Both are important. That interpretation is best which makes the textual interpretation match the contextual. A statute is best interpreted when we know why it was enacted. With this knowledge, the statute must be read, first as a whole and then section by section, clause by clause, phrase by phrase and word by word. If a statute is looked at, in the context of its enactment, with the glasses of the statute-maker, provided by such context, its scheme, the sections, clauses, phrases and words may take colour and appear different than when the statute is looked at without the glasses provided by the context. With these glasses we must look at the Act as a whole and discover what each section, each clause, each phrase and each word is meant and designed to say as to fit into the scheme of the entire Act. No part of a statute and no word of a statute can be construed in isolation. Statutes have to be construed so that every word has a place and everything is in its place. It is by looking at the definition as a whole in the setting of the entire Act and by reference to what preceded the enactment and the reasons for it that the Court construed the expression 'Prize Chit' in Srinivasa Enterprise vs. Union of India8 and we find no reason to depart from the Court's construction."
21. In Printers (Mysore) Ltd., supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court analyzing the words "in this Act, unless the context otherwise requires" observed thus:
8
(1981) 1 SCR 801 KAVYA SHREE K CAT, Bangalore 2026.02.13 15:17:22+05'30' 17 OA.No.170/00027/2026/CAT/BANGALORE "18. .....................It should also be remembered that Section 2 which defines certain expressions occurring in the Act opens with the words : "In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires". This shows that wherever the word "goods" occurs in the enactment, it is not mandatory that one should mechanically attribute to the said expression the meaning assigned to it in clause (d). Ordinarily, that is so. But where the context does not permit or where the context requires otherwise, the meaning assigned to it in the said definition need not be applied. If we keep the above consideration in mind, it would be evident that the expression "goods" occurring in the second half of Section 8(3)(b) cannot be taken to exclude newspapers from its purview. The context does not permit it...............Even apart from the opening words in Section 2 referred to above, it is well settled that where the context does not permit or where it would lead to absurd or unintended result, the definition of an expression need not be mechanically applied. [Vide T. M. Kanniyan v. ITO9, Pushpa Devi v. Milkhi Ram10 (para 14) and CIT v. J. H. Gotla.11]"
22. In P. Kasilingam and others, supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the use of the word 'means' indicates that definition is a hard and fast definition. The word 'includes' when used enlarges the meaning of the expression defined. In the light of these judgments, definition under Rules 2 (a) and (b) are examined. Giving a literal interpretation to Rule 2 (a), any member of the Indian Police Service, even a Superintendent of Police can be posted to the cadre post of Inspector General of Police specified under Item 1 of each cadre in schedule to the Regulations as Rule 8 9 (1968) 2 SCR 103 10 (1990) 2 SCC 134 11 (1985) 4 SCC 343 KAVYA SHREE K CAT, Bangalore 2026.02.13 15:17:22+05'30' 18 OA.No.170/00027/2026/CAT/BANGALORE (1) enumerates, every cadre post shall be filled by a cadre officer. Such an interpretation would lead to absurdity.
23. It is evident from the Notification dated 29.09.2022 - Indian Police Service (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Eighth Amendment Regulations, 2022 issued by DOPT, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, in the schedule for the heading 'Karnataka', the following posts are specified: 1) Total Senior Duty Posts 122
2) Central Deputation Reserve not exceeding 48 40% of item 1 above
3) State Deputation Reserve not exceeding 25% 30 of item 1 above
4) Training Reserve not exceeding 3.5% of item 1 4 above
5) Leave Reserve and Junior Posts Reserve not 20 exceeding 16.5% of item 1 above
6) Posts to be filled by promotion under Rule 9 of 68 the Indian Police Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 not exceeding 33 1/3% of Item 1,2,3 & 4 above
7) Posts to be filled up by Direct Recruitment 156 (Items 1+2+3+4+5+6) Total Authorized Strength 224 Inspector General of Police, Ballari Range, Ballari is the post specified under Item 1 - among 122 Total Senior Duty Posts.
Admittedly, Deputy Inspector General of Police post is not available in the Ballari range, Ballari in terms of this Notification. KAVYA SHREE K CAT, Bangalore 2026.02.13 15:17:22+05'30' 19 OA.No.170/00027/2026/CAT/BANGALORE In the background of the opening words of Rule 2 of the Rules, it is not mandatory that one should mechanically attribute to the said expression the meaning assigned to it in Clause (a) i.e., where the context does not permit or where the context otherwise requires, the meaning assigned to it in the said definition need not be applied mechanically.
24. It is well-settled that the words get the colour from the context. In the words of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Towne vs. Eisner12, "a word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged; it is the skin of a living thought, and may vary greatly in colour and content according to the circumstances and the time in which it is used....", meaning interpretation must account for context and changing circumstances. In the context of only one post of Inspector General of Police (Pay Level 14) is specified under the Regulations at Ballari Range and posting of the applicant as Deputy Inspector General of Police (Pay Level 13A) downgrading the post of Inspector General of Police cannot be construed as the applicant holding the cadre post as the cadre officer to attract Rule 7 (c)(ii) and (iii), as such, the tenure prescribed under Rule 7 (c)(ii) and recommendations of a committee transferring an officer before the 12 245 U.S. 418 (1918) KAVYA SHREE K CAT, Bangalore 2026.02.13 15:17:22+05'30' 20 OA.No.170/00027/2026/CAT/BANGALORE minimum prescribed tenure under Rule 7 (c)(iii) are not applicable to the present facts of the case. This view is fortified by the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in the case of M/s. Gammon India Ltd. And Others vs. Union of India and Others13, wherein it is held thus:
"19. The expression "work of an establishment" means the work site where the construction work of the establishment is carried on by the petitioners by employing contract labour. Every clause of a statute is to be construed with reference to the context and other provisions of the Act to make a consistent and harmonious meaning of the statute relating to the subject matter. The interpretation of the words will be by looking at the context, the collocation of the words and the object of the words relating to the matters. The words are not to be viewed detached from the context of the statute. The words are to be viewed in relation to the whole context. The definition of contractor, workman, contract labour, establishment, principal employer all indicate that the work of an establishment means the work site of the establishment where a building is constructed for the establishment. The construction is the work of the establishment. The expression "employed in or in connection with the work of the establishment"
does not mean that the operation assigned to the workmen must be a part or incidental to the work performed by the principal employer. The contractor is employed to produce the given result for the benefit of the principal employer in fulfilment of the undertaking given to him by the contractor. Therefore, the employment of the contract labour, namely, the workmen by the contractor is in connection with the work of the establishment. The petitioners are contractors within the meaning of the Act. The work which the petitioners undertake is the work of the establishment."
(emphasis supplied) 13 (1974) 1 SCC 596 KAVYA SHREE K CAT, Bangalore 2026.02.13 15:17:22+05'30' 21 OA.No.170/00027/2026/CAT/BANGALORE
25. The argument canvassed by the learned senior counsel for the applicant if accepted, applying the definition of Rule 2 (a) mechanically to Rule 7 c (ii) and (iii) read with Rule 8 (1), the same would make Rule 9 unworkable, leading to absurdity or unintended result. Given the circumstances, conjoint reading of Rule 2 (a) and
(b) is warranted.
26. In S.K. Nausad Rahaman and Others, supra, referring to J.S. Yadav vs. State of U.P.14 and Jarnail Singh vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta15 to the meaning of cadre, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that Rule 5 of 2016 Recruitment Rules considered therein, postulates that each CCA has a separate cadre and does not contain a provision for bringing in, by way of absorption, persons from outside the cadre. In J.S. Yadav vs. State of U.P., supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the expression "cadre" generally "12...... denotes a strength of a service or a part of service sanctioned as a separate unit. It also includes sanctioned strength with reference to grades in a particular service. Cadre may also include temporary, supernumerary and shadow posts created in different grades."
27. In Jarnail Singh, supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court noted 14 (2011) 6 SCC 570 15 (2022) 10 SCC 595 KAVYA SHREE K CAT, Bangalore 2026.02.13 15:17:22+05'30' 22 OA.No.170/00027/2026/CAT/BANGALORE "31. ......The dispute that arose for consideration of this Court in Dr. Chakradhar Paswan v. State of Bihar16 relates to the posts of Director and three Deputy Directors in the Directorate of Indigenous Medicines, Department of Health, State of Bihar being grouped together for the purpose of implementing the policy of reservation under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India. ...... It was held that the term "cadre" has a definite legal connotation in service jurisprudence. This Court referred to Fundamental Rule 9(4) which defines the word "cadre" to mean the strength of a service or part of a service sanctioned as a separate unit.......
33. ....... In Union of India v. Pushpa Rani17. "Cadre" in the 1985 edition of the Railway Establishment Code is defined as the strength of a service or a part of a service sanctioned as a separate unit. This Court held that the posts sanctioned in different grades would constitute independent cadres, even for the purpose of implementing the roster........."
28. In Sri Dhammkirti vs. The State of Karnataka18, the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has held as under:
"13. In terms of the afore extracted Clause, it becomes unmistakably clear that Senior Staff for accounting and audit functions must be sourced exclusively from State Accounts Departments.
14. Notwithstanding the Cadre and Recruitment Rules and the Government Order dated 30.10.2012, the petitioner was posted as Audit Officer which is blatantly contrary to the aforementioned statute and the order stating that petitioner is not an Audit Officer and is not an employee of the Karnataka State Accounts and Audit Department but is an employee of the Public Works Department. Thus, the posting of the petitioner being contrary to law cannot have any right whatsoever to continue in the post. Even on examination of this Clause qua the transfer order, the impugned order being premature or otherwise would not arise."16
(1988) 2 SCC 214 17 (2008) 9 SCC 242 18 ILR 2020 KAR 1773 KAVYA SHREE K CAT, Bangalore 2026.02.13 15:17:22+05'30' 23 OA.No.170/00027/2026/CAT/BANGALORE
29. Government of India's decision under Rule 2 vide G.I M.H.A letter No. 14/51/65-AIS(III), dated 21.02.1966 reads thus:
"1. The Government of India have held that a cadre post as defined in the Rules means only the post specified under item 1 of the cadre strength of each State. A non-cadre post does not become a cadre post simply, on being declared equivalent to a cadre post. It would become a cadre post only after it has been included in and specified as such item I of the cadre strength of each State as shown in the schedules to the I.A.S., I.P.S. (Fixation of Cadre Strength).
[G.I M.H.A. letter No. 14/51/65-AIS(III), dated 21-2-1966]"
30. In the light of the aforesaid judgments and the Government of India's decision referred to above, 'cadre officer' defined under Rule 2 (a) of the Rules cannot be mechanically applied to Rules 7 (c) (ii), (iii) and 8 of the Rules to consider the applicant as a cadre officer for the cadre post at Ballari specified under the Regulations. Moreover, as observed in Kasilingam, supra, having regard to the use of the word 'means' and not 'means and includes', the definition clause is not enlarged in the present case but read in the context.
31. Thus, the posting of the applicant to the vacant cadre post as Deputy Inspector General of Police, downgrading the cadre post, cannot create any right to continue in the said post once Rule 9 (1) is attracted. Rule 9 deals with Temporary appointment of non-cadre officer to cadre post. Rule 9 (1) provides that a cadre post in a State shall not be filled by a person who is not a cadre officer except in KAVYA SHREE K CAT, Bangalore 2026.02.13 15:17:22+05'30' 24 OA.No.170/00027/2026/CAT/BANGALORE the following case, namely:- a) if there is no suitable cadre officer available for filling the vacancy. The first proviso therein provides that when a suitable cadre officer becomes available, the person who is not a cadre officer, shall be replaced by a cadre officer.
32. It is discernible from the material placed on record that the 2nd respondent, Inspector General of Police (Pay Level 14) was on study leave and after returning from the study leave reported to government on 29.12.2025 and was waiting for the posting. The arguments of the learned senior counsel for the applicant that this Rule 9 (1) would attract only in case of Non-IPS officers deserves to be negated for the reason that non-cadre officer means any officer holding a position not officially listed in the Scheduled cadre strength of a specific service, often appointed temporarily to fill a vacancy when no suitable cadre officer is available. Even an IPS officer - Deputy Inspector General of Police holding a position in Ballari Range, not officially listed in the Scheduled cadre strength and only one post of Inspector General of Police being specified, the applicant would certainly come within the ambit of non-cadre officer holding the cadre post. In terms of 2 nd proviso, if it is proposed to continue the person who is not a cadre officer beyond a period of three months, the State Government shall obtain KAVYA SHREE K CAT, Bangalore 2026.02.13 15:17:22+05'30' 25 OA.No.170/00027/2026/CAT/BANGALORE the prior approval of the Central Government for such continuance. The applicant, being a non-cadre officer, has to make way for a cadre officer. The applicant has no right to the cadre post, since she is not belonging to the cadre and rank of Inspector General of Police and cannot claim any right of minimum tenure. Right of minimum tenure would attract only if the officer is eligible to the scheduled cadre post, subject to other conditions.
33. It may be true that some of the Deputy Inspector General of Police who have been posted to the downgraded post of Inspector General of Police have been retained beyond a period of three months without the prior approval of the Central Government, such continuance or for continuing a person who is not a cadre officer beyond the period of three months sans following the procedure prescribed in Rule 9 is not justifiable. Such violation of the Rule would not be a guideline to protect the applicant or to hold such cases as illegal in the absence of any challenge made to such continuance against the Rule.
34. It is pertinent to note that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka dealt with the interpretation of Section 20B of the Police Act which reads thus:
KAVYA SHREE K CAT, Bangalore 2026.02.13 15:17:22+05'30' 26 OA.No.170/00027/2026/CAT/BANGALORE "32. It is in this background we have to interpret Section 20B, which provides for Police Establishment Board. It reads as under:
"20B. Police Establishment Board.-
(1) The State Government shall, by notification in the official Gazette, establish a Police Establishment Board with the Director General and Inspector General of Police as Chairman and three senior most police officers not below the rank of Additional Director General of Police working within the police department as members. Additional Director General of Police (Administration) shall be the convener.
(2) The functions of the Police Establishment Board shall be as follows, namely:-
(a) Subject to the provisions of section 20F, it shall decide on transfers, postings, promotions and other service related matters of officers of and below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.
(b) It shall also make recommendation for promotion to the rank of Deputy Superintendents of Police after duly verifying reservation and quota prescribed for direct recruitment and promotion. For this purpose a separate register shall be maintained by Director General and Inspector General of Police, as per orders or guidelines prescribed by Government from time to time.
(c) It shall make appropriate recommendations to the Government regarding postings and transfers of officers of and above the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police."
This provision has been amended by the Karnataka Police (Amendment) Act, 2013 whereby Clause (c) has been omitted. Thus, the judgment in T. Suneel Kumar, supra, would be of no assistance to the applicant.
KAVYA SHREE K CAT, Bangalore 2026.02.13 15:17:22+05'30' 27 OA.No.170/00027/2026/CAT/BANGALORE
35. Section 20F of the Police Act reads thus:
"20F. Tenure of officers incharge of police stations, circle, sub-division, district and range - (1) Subject to superannuation, the officers who are in operational duties or such other duties as may be notified by the Government from time to time shall have a minimum tenure of two years:
Provided that any such officer may be transferred by the Police Establishment Board or by the Government as the case may be from his post before the expiry of the minimum tenure consequent upon,-
(a) promotion to a higher post; or
(b) on conviction, or charges having been framed by a court of Law in a criminal offence; or
(c) imposition of punishment of dismissal, removal, discharge or compulsory retirement from service or of reduction to a lower rank awarded under the relevant discipline and appeal rules; or
(d) suspension from the service in accordance with the provisions of the said rules; or
(e) incapacitation by physical or mental illness or otherwise becoming unable to discharge his functions and duties; or
(f) the need to fill up a vacancy caused by promotion, transfer or retirement; or
(g) on request of the officer concerned in writing:
Provided further that the Government may, transfer an officer before the expiry of his minimum tenure on account of misconduct or gross negligence or an act of moral turpitude in the opinion of the State Government.
(2) Subject to superannuation, the Additional Director General of Police, the Inspector General of Police in charge of Range who are on operational duties in the field or such other duties as may be notified by the Government from time to time shall have a minimum tenure of two years:
KAVYA SHREE K CAT, Bangalore 2026.02.13 15:17:22+05'30' 28 OA.No.170/00027/2026/CAT/BANGALORE Provided that the Government may transfer such officer within a period of one year for reasons of gross misconduct or negligence or an act of moral turpitude in the opinion of the State Government or under circumstances specified in the provisos to sub-section (1)."
36. Section 20F (State Laws) focussed on security of tenure. Section 20F (2) of the Police Act is not applicable to Deputy Inspector General of Police. Section 20F (1) empowers the State Government to transfer officer, before completion of minimum tenure under the circumstances provided in the provisos' thereof. While invoking the provision of Rule 9 (1) (a) and the proviso's thereof, right to maintain minimum tenure would not be applicable having regard to the availability of the suitable cadre officer to the cadre post, the officer who is not a cadre officer to cadre post is replaced by the cadre officer. Posting of Respondent No. 2 to the cadre post is replacement.
37. It is well-settled that even if there is any conflict between State law and Central law, Central law prevails. Rule 9 (Central Rules) focusses on the procedural regulation of filling IPS positions to maintain the All India Service Structure. Rule 9 generally take precedence regarding posting to cadre posts since All India Services are governed by the Central Government under Article KAVYA SHREE K CAT, Bangalore 2026.02.13 15:17:22+05'30' 29 OA.No.170/00027/2026/CAT/BANGALORE 312 of the Constitution. Liberty given under Rule 9 is to cope up with the administrative exigencies but it has become the breeding ground to distort the purport which should scrupulously be eschewed and avoided. Though the upgrading and downgrading of cadre posts are administrative actions aimed at rationalizing the service structure, often to meet functional needs, accommodate officers aligned with payscales, the same cannot be done in a routine manner circumventing the statutory provisions. In the guise of such downgrading/upgrading of cadre posts cadre officers eligible for such cadre posts cannot be ignored/victimised.
38. The memo dated 06.02.2026 filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 with certain documents, though is taken on record, this is not the forum to examine the correctness and legality of the documents annexed to the said memo. It is a separate cause of action and the challenge to the transfer order cannot be amplified by such documents. This action, if confirmed as misconduct on the part of the applicant, the same may require a formal response from the competent authority. We are not inclined to deviate from the issue involved in the case. The impugned transfer order being in the interest of public at large having regard to the incident at Ballari on 01.01.2026 which had wider ramifications with respect to KAVYA SHREE K CAT, Bangalore 2026.02.13 15:17:22+05'30' 30 OA.No.170/00027/2026/CAT/BANGALORE sensitivity involved in order to maintain law and order situation, Respondent No. 1 posting the cadre officer Respondent No. 2 to the cadre post, being found in conformity with Rule 9 (1) (a) and the proviso thereof, public interest must prevail over the private interest inasmuch as hardship caused to the applicant in relocating the school of the child and in taking care of her ailing grandfather.
39. It is well-settled that transfer is an incident of service. In Union of India and Ors vs S.L. Abbas 19 it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that an order of transfer is an incidence of service. Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by malafides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with it. In State of U.P. vs Gobardhan Lal20, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of his appointment but also implicit as an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication to the contra in the law of governing or conditions of service. 19 1993 SCR (3) 427 20 2004 (11) SCC 402 KAVYA SHREE K CAT, Bangalore 2026.02.13 15:17:22+05'30' 31 OA.No.170/00027/2026/CAT/BANGALORE
40. In Sri Janardhan Debanath, supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed thus:
"12. .........Transfers unless they involve any such adverse impact or visits the persons concerned with any penal consequences, are not required to be subjected to same type of scrutiny, approach and assessment as in the case of dismissal, discharge, reversion or termination and utmost latitude should be left with the department concerned to enforce discipline, decency and decorum in public service which are indisputably essential to maintain quality of public service and meet untoward administrative exigencies to ensure smooth functioning of the administration.
13. Additionally, it was pointed out by learned counsel for the Union of India that as indicated in the special leave petition itself there was no question of any loss of seniority or promotional prospects. These are the aspects which can be gone into in an appropriate proceeding, if at all there is any adverse order in the matter of seniority or promotion. It was also submitted that transfer was within the same circle i.e. the North Eastern Circle and, therefore, the question of any seniority getting affected by the transfer prima facie does not arise.
14. The allegations made against the respondents are of serious nature, and the conduct attributed is certainly unbecoming. Whether there was any misbehaviour is a question which can be gone into in a departmental proceeding. For the purposes of effecting a transfer, the question of holding an enquiry to find out whether there was misbehaviour or conduct unbecoming of an employee is unnecessary and what is needed is the prima facie satisfaction of the authority concerned on the contemporary reports about the occurrence complained of and if the requirement, as submitted by learned counsel for the respondents, of holding an elaborate enquiry is to be insisted upon the very purpose of transferring an employee in public interest or exigencies of administration to enforce decorum and ensure probity would get frustrated........"
KAVYA SHREE K CAT, Bangalore 2026.02.13 15:17:22+05'30' 32 OA.No.170/00027/2026/CAT/BANGALORE
41. Impugned transfer order dated 07.01.2026 (Annexure A5) is a composite transfer order involving transfer of the applicant and posting of Respondent No. 2 in addition to transfer of Dr. Suman D. Pennekar, the same being an administrative order, assigning of reasons is not mandatory and the same would not vitiate the transfer order. The applicant has no vested right to continue in the cadre post once the cadre officer of that post is available and posted. Hence, the impugned transfer order cannot be held to be arbitrary and illegal. Accordingly, the applicant is directed to report at the transferred place within a period of four weeks. Interim order period shall be treated as joining/waiting period.
42. However, the applicant while relocating her child at Ballari for schooling has paid Rs. 76,500/- towards fees as per the Fee Receipt issued by the International Delhi Public School, Ballari dated 11.08.2025 (Annexure A6). Again to relocate her son at Bangalore, the applicant has to incur huge expenses towards fees for schooling. Hence, Respondent No. 1 shall refund the fees of schooling of applicant's son on further re-location for the respective academic year. As the current academic year approaching to an end, the applicant if intends to avail leave, the KAVYA SHREE K CAT, Bangalore 2026.02.13 15:17:22+05'30' 33 OA.No.170/00027/2026/CAT/BANGALORE same be sanctioned by the Respondent No. 1 to support the schooling of her child in the present academic year.
43. With the aforesaid observations and directions, OA stands dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(DR. SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE S. SUJATHA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/ksk/
KAVYA SHREE K
CAT, Bangalore
2026.02.13 15:17:22+05'30'