The Uttarakhand High Court has sought a response from the state government after two senior Indian Police Service (IPS) officers challenged their deputation to central armed police forces at positions they claim are lower than their current rank. The officers argue that the deputation was ordered without their consent and violates service rules.
The matter came up before a division bench of Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Subhash Upadhyay, which was hearing a petition filed by two IPS officers of the Uttarakhand cadre.
According to the petition, the officers challenged orders issued by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs that placed them on deputation to central forces. One of the officers, Garg, a 2005-batch IPS officer, has been posted as Deputy Inspector General (DIG) in the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP). The other officer, Joshi, from the 2006 IPS batch, has been appointed as DIG in the Border Security Force (BSF).
The petitioners stated that they are currently serving as Inspectors General of Police in the Uttarakhand Police. They contend that being posted as DIG amounts to a placement at a lower rank than their present position.
The officers also told the court that they had neither applied for central deputation nor given their consent for such a move. Their plea further claims that the deputation orders violate applicable service rules.
According to the petition, the officers had earlier communicated their unwillingness to go on central deputation. Despite this, the state government forwarded their names to the Centre on February 16, 2026. Subsequently, the Union government issued orders posting them to the central forces.
During the hearing, counsel representing the state government argued that the officers should approach the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) if they had objections to the deputation orders.
Counsel for the petitioners, however, maintained that the matter was appropriately brought before the Uttarakhand High Court since the proposal for deputation originated from the state government.
After hearing the submissions from both sides, the division bench directed the state government to file its response in the case. The matter is expected to be taken up further after the government places its stand before the court.
