NAINITAL: The Uttarakhand High Court has sought responses from the Centre and the state government on a public interest litigation alleging widespread violations of rules governing the transfer and posting of IAS, IPS and IFS officers in the state over more than 12 years.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Subhash Upadhyay heard the petition on Monday and directed the respondents to obtain instructions and file a counter affidavit. The matter has been ordered to be listed again after three weeks.
The petition alleges that Uttarakhand has, since the Supreme Court’s landmark T.S.R. Subramanian judgment of October 31, 2013, repeatedly departed from the framework governing Civil Services Boards (CSBs), minimum tenure and premature transfers.
The petitioner has also raised questions over the manner in which property returns filed by All India Services officers are scrutinised, alleging that the process has been reduced to a routine or “clerical formality” despite the powers available to the state and Centre under the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968.
PIL Filed by Bageshwar Social Activist
The petition has been filed by Pankaj Pandey, a Bageshwar-based social activist associated with the civic group Nagrik Manch.
Pandey has previously approached the Uttarakhand High Court through PILs concerning pollution in the Saryu river.
The respondents named in the present petition include the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) of the Union government, the Uttarakhand Chief Secretary in his capacity as chairman of the Civil Services Board, and the Principal Secretaries of the Personnel, Home and Forest departments.
According to the petition, the allegations are based substantially on documents obtained under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, along with government records and orders passed by the Uttarakhand High Court.
The allegations in the PIL have yet to be adjudicated by the court.
What the 2013 Supreme Court Judgment Said
The petition is principally based on the Supreme Court’s judgment in T.S.R. Subramanian & Others vs Union of India & Others, delivered on October 31, 2013.
The judgment directed the Union government and states to establish Civil Services Boards to advise on transfers and postings of civil servants and to provide greater stability of tenure.
Following the judgment, the DoPT amended the cadre rules governing the IAS, IPS and IFS on January 28, 2014.
According to the petition, the amended framework provides, among other things, that:
- appointments and transfers to cadre posts should ordinarily be made on the recommendation of the Civil Services Board;
- a minimum tenure of two years is prescribed for cadre posts;
- where the competent authority does not accept the board’s recommendation, reasons are required to be recorded in writing; and
- the Civil Services Board is required to submit periodic reports concerning premature transfers.
The petition alleges that these safeguards have not been consistently followed in Uttarakhand.
PIL Alleges IAS Transfers Bypassed Civil Services Board
One of the principal allegations concerns the functioning of the Civil Services Board for IAS officers.
According to the petition, Uttarakhand constituted Civil Services Boards for IAS and IFS officers in 2014. However, the petitioner claims that almost all of the “hundreds” of IAS transfers made thereafter, except on one or two occasions, were effected without the board’s recommendation.
The petition further alleges that several IAS transfers were based on oral directions from “higher levels”, with formal approval from the Chief Minister being obtained only after transfer orders had already been issued.
It also claims that the two-year minimum tenure was breached in many such cases.
The petitioner has sought examination of these practices and a direction that the prescribed institutional process be followed in future.
IPS Board Proposal Was Not Implemented, Petition Claims
The petition makes a separate set of allegations regarding IPS officers.
It states that a Civil Services Board for IPS officers was proposed in August 2018, but the proposal was subsequently kept in abeyance, with the state citing a 2014 Supreme Court order in the Prakash Singh contempt matter.
According to the petition, the Home Department instead continued to route police postings through the Police Establishment Board.
The petitioner has questioned whether this arrangement adequately conforms to the framework flowing from the Supreme Court’s directions and subsequent cadre-rule amendments.
The court has now sought the government’s response to these allegations.
IFS Transfers Allegedly Became a Formal Exercise
The PIL also examines the functioning of the board in relation to Indian Forest Service officers.
According to the petitioner, IFS transfer proposals were placed before the Civil Services Board, but the reasons for several transfers were allegedly not adequately recorded.
The petition claims that in some instances the board effectively became a formal mechanism that approved transfer proposals that had already been decided elsewhere.
These are allegations made in the PIL and will have to be considered in light of the responses filed by the Centre and the state government.
No Quarterly Reports on Premature Transfers, PIL Claims
Another significant allegation concerns the reporting of premature transfers to the Centre.
The petition claims that not a single quarterly report was sent to the Centre concerning transfers made before completion of the prescribed two-year tenure.
It further states that the state did not respond to a DoPT communication dated December 16, 2025, which sought details regarding the functioning of the Civil Services Boards.
The petitioner has therefore sought a consolidated account of premature transfers made in the state since the cadre-rule amendments came into force in January 2014.
PIL Raises Questions Over Property Returns
The petition has also raised concerns about the scrutiny of property returns submitted by All India Services officers.
Under Rule 16 of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968, officers are required to furnish declarations regarding their assets and liabilities in accordance with the prescribed requirements.
The petitioner specifically relies on Rule 16(5), which empowers the government to call for information from an All India Services officer regarding movable and immovable property and the sources through which such assets were acquired.
According to the PIL, the state and Union governments have not adequately used these powers to conduct meaningful scrutiny of the disclosures.
The petitioner has alleged that the filing of property returns has consequently become little more than a “clerical formality”.
The petition further claims that, since the creation of Uttarakhand, only one disproportionate-assets case involving an IAS officer — that of Ram Vilas Yadav — has been registered.
Cases of Officers Cited in the PIL
The petitioner has cited several individual cases and court proceedings to illustrate what he alleges are broader systemic problems in the state’s transfer, posting and vigilance framework.
One of the cases mentioned is that of Pramendra Singh Dobal, currently serving as Senior Superintendent of Police, Dehradun. The petition refers to a rape case registered against him in Nainital district in May 2013 and says related proceedings remain pending before the High Court. It questions his subsequent posting to head the police in the state capital, citing the availability of other directly recruited IPS officers.
The petition also refers to the complainant in that case having sought euthanasia in 2013, a matter that was disposed of by the High Court in the same year.
The allegations and references in the PIL concerning individual officers are matters raised by the petitioner and do not constitute findings by the High Court in the present proceedings.
S. Raju’s Case Also Mentioned
The PIL also refers to the case of S. Raju, a 1983-batch IAS officer.
According to the petition, the Supreme Court had made adverse observations in 2013 concerning irregularities in the promotion process for the post of Managing Director of the state Jal Nigam and directed action.
The petitioner claims that instead of facing the action referred to in the court proceedings, Raju was subsequently appointed Chairman of the Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission after retirement.
The petition further points out that Raju resigned from that position in August 2022 in connection with the paper-leak case.
Barinderjit Singh Transfer Also Cited
The PIL also refers to the July 2020 case involving Barinderjit Singh, IPS (2008 batch), who was then serving as Senior Superintendent of Police, Udham Singh Nagar.
According to the petition, Singh had approached the High Court challenging his transfer before completion of the prescribed two-year tenure.
The petition cites his allegations that he had been harassed by senior officers and that the transfer was mala fide and intended “solely” at “targeting” him.
The case has been cited by the petitioner in support of the argument that minimum-tenure safeguards need to be applied consistently.
Ranjan Kumar Mishra’s Property Returns Cited
The PIL also raises questions about the service progression of IFS officer Ranjan Kumar Mishra.
According to the petition, Mishra had allegedly not filed his immovable property returns for around 10 years but was nevertheless promoted to Level 17, the apex level of the pay matrix, and appointed Head of Forest Force.
The issue has also featured in a separate recent controversy. In September 2026, an IFS officer sought a CBI probe into Mishra’s promotion, alleging that mandatory property-return requirements had not been complied with. Mishra, a 1993-batch IFS officer, had been appointed to the apex pay scale and as Head of Forest Force in December 2025 and retired in June 2026.
The present PIL relies on the case as an example of the petitioner’s broader argument regarding scrutiny of property declarations.
Chief Secretary Anand Bardhan Also Referred To
The petition has also raised allegations concerning the present Chief Secretary Anand Bardhan, who is the ex-officio chairman of the Civil Services Board.
It refers to a committee constituted by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) and headed by the then Director General of Forests to examine alleged financial irregularities relating to the Corbett Tiger Reserve.
According to the petition, the committee held responsible officers of the Uttarakhand government who had issued the relevant sanctions, and Bardhan, who was then Principal Secretary (Forest), was among the officials referred to by the petitioner.
These references form part of the petitioner’s submissions and are not findings in the present PIL.
Frequent Transfers in Bageshwar Cited as Example
The petitioner has also used his home district of Bageshwar to highlight what he describes as the administrative consequences of frequent transfers.
According to the PIL, Bageshwar had five District Magistrates and five Superintendents of Police in four years.
The petitioner argues that, under the applicable minimum-tenure framework, there could have been at most two officers in each position during the period cited.
The PIL contends that frequent changes at the district level can disrupt continuity in administration, development programmes and law-and-order management.
What the Petitioner Wants
The petitioner has sought a series of directions aimed at strengthening institutional oversight of transfers and postings of All India Services officers in Uttarakhand.
Among the principal reliefs sought are directions that no transfer or posting be made without the recommendation of the competent Civil Services Board, except in accordance with the applicable statutory framework.
The petitioner has also sought that written reasons be recorded whenever the competent authority takes a decision contrary to the board’s recommendation.
Another key demand is a consolidated report covering all premature transfers since January 28, 2014, when the relevant cadre-rule amendments came into force.
The PIL further seeks consideration of disciplinary proceedings against members of the Civil Services Boards alleged to have violated the prescribed rules.
Annual Scrutiny of Property Returns Sought
On asset disclosures, the petitioner has sought an institutional mechanism under Rule 16(5) of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 for annual scrutiny of officers’ property returns.
The proposed mechanism would involve more than merely collecting declarations and would allow the government to examine the details of movable and immovable properties and their sources, as permitted under the rules.
The petitioner has argued that such scrutiny is necessary to ensure that property-return requirements serve their intended purpose rather than becoming a routine compliance exercise.
HC Seeks Responses From Centre and State
The High Court’s latest order does not determine the allegations raised in the PIL. Instead, the court has sought responses from the concerned authorities.
The respondents have been given time to obtain instructions and file their counter affidavits, after which the matter will be taken up again.
The case could therefore bring under judicial scrutiny the functioning of Civil Services Boards, the implementation of minimum-tenure protections for All India Services officers, the procedure for premature transfers and the scrutiny of officers’ property returns in Uttarakhand.
The PIL’s central contention is that the safeguards introduced following the 2013 T.S.R. Subramanian judgment and the subsequent 2014 cadre-rule amendments have not been consistently implemented in the state. The Centre and Uttarakhand government will now have an opportunity to respond to those allegations before the High Court.
