High Court rejects IAS officers' petitions challenging their allocation to the Andhra Pradesh cadre
The IAS officers, including Vakati Karuna, Vani Prasad, Ronald Rose, Amrapali, Srujana, Sivashankar, and Harikiran, had filed house motion petitions challenging the DoPT directives.
HYDERABAD: IAS officers faced a setback in the Telangana High Court as their petitions to stay the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) orders were dismissed. The High Court ruled that the officers, who had been allocated to the Andhra Pradesh cadre, must report to their new postings immediately. The court upheld the earlier orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).
The IAS officers, including Vakati Karuna, Vani Prasad, Ronald Rose, Amrapali, Srujana, Sivashankar, and Harikiran, had filed house motion petitions challenging the DoPT directives. After hearing arguments from both sides, the court dismissed the petitions.
The IAS officers’ legal representatives argued that the central government had ignored previous High Court orders regarding the consideration of ten years of experience for cadre allocation. They also claimed that the Centre had not considered earlier directives in their petitions.
The officers requested to delay their release until November 4, pending a final decision from CAT. Both the Andhra Pradesh and Telangana governments had supported a request to delay the officers' release by 15 days, submitting letters to the High Court. However, the court did not accept these arguments.
Representing the Centre, Additional Solicitor General Narasimha Sharma argued that courts should not decide where employees are posted, and the decision not to grant a stay by CAT was appropriate. He requested that the petitions be dismissed and assured the court that a counter to the DoPT’s decision would be filed in CAT.
Taking the central government's arguments into account, the court rejected the IAS officers' request for a 15-day extension. The court instructed the officers to report to their Andhra Pradesh postings immediately, indicating that any further issues could be addressed later. The court emphasized that frequent interventions in such matters could complicate administrative processes further.