The Uttarakhand High Court has intervened in a legal challenge brought by two senior Indian Police Service (IPS) officers who are contesting their central deputation to posts ranked lower than their current positions in the state police.
A division bench of Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Subhash Upadhyay has directed both the Central and Uttarakhand state governments to file detailed affidavits. The court specifically wants to know whether the initiative to move the officers originated from the Union government or if the state government recommended their names unilaterally.
The legal battle involves Neeru Garg (2005-batch) and Arun Mohan Joshi (2006-batch), both currently serving as Inspectors General (IG) in the Uttarakhand Police.
According to a Union Home Ministry order, Garg was appointed as Deputy Inspector General (DIG) in the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP), while Joshi was appointed as DIG in the Border Security Force (BSF). The officers argue that this move effectively functions as a demotion, placing them in a rank lower than what they currently hold.
The petitioners’ primary contention is that they never applied for, nor consented to, central deputation. The petition highlights several points of contention:
- Lack of Consent: The officers state they had previously expressed reluctance regarding central deputation, which led to them being barred from such roles for five years.
- State Action: Despite the standing bar, the Uttarakhand government allegedly forwarded their names to the Centre on February 16, leading to the subsequent deputation orders.
- Jurisdiction: The state government argued that the officers should approach the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). However, the petitioners’ counsel contended that since the proposal originated from the state government, the High Court maintains jurisdiction over the matter.
Beyond seeking clarification on the origin of the deputation proposal, the High Court has granted the petitioners permission to file a rejoinder affidavit in response to the state’s submissions.
The court has scheduled the next hearing for March 19, at which point the governments’ explanations regarding the administrative process behind these transfers will be examined.
