IAS cadre posting rules require objective equivalence for non-cadre posts; arbitrariness and mala fides must be clearly proved.

A non-cadre post may be assigned to an IAS officer only after an objective declaration that it is equivalent in status and responsibility to a scheduled cadre post; equivalence cannot rest on pay alone, and the Rule 9(1) declaration is mandatory. Equality review under Articles 14 and 16 fails unless arbitrariness or discrimination is clearly shown, and mala fides require cogent contemporaneous proof. On the facts, the transfer was not proved arbitrary or mala fide, and the officer was held to have been acting as Chief Secretary only in an officiating capacity, not substantively appointed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the petitioner's transfer from the post of Chief Secretary to the posts of Deputy Chairman, State Planning Commission and Officer on Special Duty violated Rule 4(2) of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 and Rule 9(1) of the Indian Administrative Service (Pay) Rules, 1954; (ii) whether the impugned transfer was arbitrary or discriminatory and offended Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India; (iii) whether the transfer and the creation of the impugned posts were vitiated by mala fides; and (iv) whether the petitioner had been substantively appointed as Chief Secretary or only appointed in an officiating capacity.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner's transfer from the post of Chief Secretary to the posts of Deputy Chairman, State Planning Commission and Officer on Special Duty violated Rule 4(2) of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 and Rule 9(1) of the Indian Administrative Service (Pay) Rules, 1954.

Analysis: The cadre rule permits only temporary addition of posts carrying duties and responsibilities of a like nature, and the State cannot alter the cadre strength or composition by creating new posts outside the cadre. Rule 9(1) requires a declaration that a non-cadre post is equivalent in status and responsibility to a scheduled post before a member of the Service is appointed to it; the declaration is mandatory and must rest on an objective assessment of duties and responsibilities, not merely on the pay attached to the post. The record showed that the impugned orders did not contain a proper declaration of equivalence and that the grading of the posts changed according to the officer proposed to be appointed.

Conclusion: The appointments to the posts were inconsistent with Rule 9(1), though relief on this ground was not granted under Article 32; the challenge under Rule 4(2) failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned transfer was arbitrary or discriminatory and offended Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Equality under Articles 14 and 16 forbids arbitrariness in State action and prohibits unequal treatment in public employment. A transfer from one post to another is not unconstitutional merely because the incumbent prefers the earlier post or because the new post does not confer the same amplitude of powers, provided the action is taken for administrative reasons and the posts are not shown to be inferior in status and responsibility on the record. On the materials placed, the petitioner failed to establish that the post of Officer on Special Duty was in fact inferior to the post of Chief Secretary, and the post of Deputy Chairman had been accepted by the petitioner as one of comparable status.

Conclusion: The transfer was not shown to be arbitrary or discriminatory, and there was no infringement of Articles 14 and 16.

Issue (iii): Whether the transfer and the creation of the impugned posts were vitiated by mala fides.

Analysis: A plea of mala fides requires clear and cogent proof and cannot rest on suspicion, inference, or allegations made long after the event. The Court found that the petitioner did not place reliable contemporaneous material establishing personal hostility or that the impugned action was taken to victimize him. The surrounding circumstances and official records did not establish that the operative reason for the transfer was extraneous to administration.

Conclusion: Mala fides were not proved.

Issue (iv): Whether the petitioner had been substantively appointed as Chief Secretary or only appointed in an officiating capacity.

Analysis: The authenticated order appointed the petitioner "to act as Chief Secretary", and the earlier incumbent, having been granted refused leave, retained lien until the expiry of that leave. The appointment was therefore not a substantive appointment to the post of Chief Secretary but an officiating arrangement.

Conclusion: The petitioner was appointed only in an officiating capacity and had no enforceable right to continue as Chief Secretary.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner's challenge to the transfer failed on the constitutional grounds urged, and the impugned administrative action was upheld; the writ petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A non-cadre post can be used for an IAS officer only if the Government objectively determines and declares its equivalence in status and responsibility, and State action in public employment is invalid only when arbitrariness, discrimination, or mala fides is established on clear proof.

---