ARCHANA M S vs DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (DPAR) AND OTHERS on 23 October 2026

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE Order Sheet Item no.: 6 M.A./383/2026 (BANGALORE) [ EARLY HEARING ] In O.A./354/2026 TRANSFER M.A./384/2026 C.P./33/2026 Court No.: 2 No of Adjournment: Order Dated: 23/10/2026 ARCHANA M S Vs DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (DPAR) AND OTHERS

For Applicant(s) Advocate : Ms. Monica Patil For Respondent(s) Advocate : AGA Shri Mahantesh Shettar for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 - through video conference, Shri S. Prakash Shetty for Respondent No. 3, None for Respondent No. 4 Order of The Tribunal Ms. Monica Patil on behalf of the applicant. AGA Shri Mahantesh Shettar on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 – through video conference. Shri S. Prakash Shetty for Respondent No. 3. None for Respondent No. 4. MA No. 383/2026 is filed for early hearing Heard the counsel for applicant as well as the counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 on MA 383/2026. This OA is originally listed for 26.10.2026. However, in view of the urgency shown herein, the MA 383/2026 is allowed and the matter is preponed.

MA No. 384/2026 is filed for seeking interim stay. Heard on MA 384/2026. The counsel for the applicant points out to the history of frequent transfers of the applicant over the last few years in violation of Rule 7 of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 as amended on 28.01.2014. She also points out that a cadre officer appointed to a given post is required to hold office for at least two years as per Rule 7(3). She also mentions that any premature transfer before the minimum prescribed period of two years has to be done on the specific recommendation of Civil Service Board as per Rule 7(5) of the extant rules. The counsel further mentioned that on 08.09.2026 the applicant was transferred out and on 10.09.2026 this Bench had given stay order to nullify the same. The State Government had passed another order vide No. e-DPAR 387 SAS 2026 dated 17.10.2026, posting the applicant as MD Karnataka State Minerals Corporation Limited, Bengaluru. She further submits that when there is already a stay existing on the earlier order of her being posted out, how can the applicant be given another transfer order. It is also in violation of the Rule 7 cited above. Learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, per contra points out that the transfer order vide No. e-DPAR 387 SAS 2026 dated 17.10.2026 was a fresh cause of action and has nothing to do with the stay granted earlier vide order dated 10.09.2026. He further requests for a few days’ time to file the reply objecting to the request of the applicant for stay on the transfer order dated 17.10.2026. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 has furnished, across the bar, a draft copy of the response received from the Government of India, wherein the respondent has acknowledged that relevant amendments in Rule 7 have been carried out. He further requests for 10 days’ time to file a proper reply in this regard. From the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is very clear that the applicant has been transferred out from her post as MD of CHESCOM after 5 months and 8 days, which is in violation of the Rule 7 of the IAS (Cadre) Rules 1954 as amended in 2014. Based on the same, stay order has already been granted by the DB (Court No. 1) on 10.09.2026. The fresh order of transfer issued is therefore in utter disregard of the order passed by this Tribunal. Hence, the order vide No. e-DPAR 387 SAS 2026 dated 17.10.2026 is stayed till the next date of hearing, wherein the matter will be heard at length after the learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 files the reply. Hence, MA No. 384/2026 for interim stay is allowed. On the request of the counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 – 3, two weeks’ time is granted to file their replies. List the case on 23.11.2026.

Interim order granted earlier by DB (Court No. 1) stands extended till the next date of hearing.

SANTOSH MEHRA Member (A) Taru Lata ( steno 'd' )