Gurugram: IAS officer Ashok Khemka was transferred 57 times in his career spanning 34 years.
While the whistleblower-civil servant was seen as paying a price for taking on political bigwigs, the now-retired 1991-batch officer is hardly an exception in Haryana, where frequent transfers of bureaucrats seem to have become a norm.
According to the annual report submitted by Haryana’s Civil Services Board (CSB) to the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT), the state issued 17 transfer lists in 2025, overlooking Supreme Court tenure rules.
Across these lists, IAS officers were transferred 120 times before completing their two-year tenure as mandated by the Supreme Court. The reason cited in every case: “Administrative exigencies and public interest.”
On 12 June 2025, the Haryana government transferred 30 IAS officers. The order, on the face of it, appeared routine—governments shuffle bureaucrats all the time.
But a closer look at the details revealed that 22 of these officers were moved from 38 positions they had occupied for less than two years—the minimum tenure that the Supreme Court had mandated over a decade ago to insulate the bureaucracy from political whims.
The transfers underscored the difficulties in insulating the bureaucracy from political interference despite the Supreme Court ruling.
Raja Sekhar Vudru, a 1990-batch IAS officer serving as additional chief secretary in the Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department, found himself transferred to the Fisheries Department in less than a year. He had only taken charge on 7 July 2024.
D. Suresh, from the 1995 batch, lasted just six months as principal secretary in the Industries and Commerce Department before being moved to Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs.
Dusmanta Kumar Bahera, a 2007-batch officer, had held the post of the State Transport Commissioner for a mere four months before being shifted to a director general post in Industries and Commerce.
The musical chairs continued with Yash Garg, a 2009-batch officer, who was simultaneously relieved of four different positions—director general and secretary of industries and commerce (held for seven months since 3 November 2024), and commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, plus managing director of the Haryana Medical Services Corporation (both held for six months since 1 December 2024).
In another list that came out on 30 November 2025, the pattern was stronger. Of the 20 IAS officers transferred, 18 were moved from 26 positions where they hadn’t completed the minimum posting of two years.
Ashok Kumar Meena, a 2006-batch officer, was pulled out as director general of panchayats and secretary just over a month after his posting on 27 October. Pankaj, from the 2009 batch, lasted exactly one month as director general of local urban bodies.
The churn touched senior officers too. Ashima Brar (2004 batch) was transferred from two positions in February 2025 after just two months. C.G. Rajini Kanthan met the same fate. Amneet P. Kumar, a 2001-batch officer, was shifted in June after four months.
A senior IAS officer told The Print that the Civil Services Board mechanism was born out of the apex court’s October 2013 judgment in the T.S.R. Subramanian vs Union of India case.
The court had directed the Centre and states to establish these boards specifically to regulate transfers and postings of All India Services officers. The objective was clear: provide minimum fixed tenure, insulate officers from political pressure, and ensure premature transfers remained exceptions, not the norm.
To implement this, the DoPT issued a notification on 13 April 2016, mandating that all IAS transfer proposals be routed through Civil Services Boards (CSB), with reasons recorded whenever their recommendations were deviated from.
“The CSB mechanism was created to curb arbitrary transfers and ensure administrative stability,” a senior Haryana government officer told ThePrint.
But, the officer said, DoPT’s notification allows the the state government–which is the competent authority in the matter of transfers–to deviate from the guidelines, provided it cites reasons for doing so.
“In these cases, the CSB has mentioned in its status report to the DoPT that the reasons were ‘administrative exigencies and public interest’,” the officer said.
Also Read: All IAS, IPS officers can’t reach top positions. Many perks, few drawbacks is nature of the job
Guidelines ‘merely an academic exercise’
A retired IAS officer, speaking on condition of anonymity, dismissed the guidelines as “merely an academic exercise”.
“Our system is such that the CM exercises immense powers. He can shift any officer any time in the name of an exigency or public interest. A question is now that the state government has sent its annual report, is the DoPT in a position to take any action? The answer is no,” he said.
He drew parallels with another set of Supreme Court guidelines that seem to have met a similar fate—the 2006 Prakash Singh judgment on DGP appointments. The landmark ruling had laid down binding norms to insulate police leadership from political interference, including selection from a UPSC-prepared panel and a minimum two-year tenure.
The Prakash Singh judgment envisioned DGPs being selected by state governments from a panel of the three senior-most eligible IPS officers, prepared by the UPSC based on the length of service, good service record and experience.
They were to be appointed for a minimum fixed tenure of two years, irrespective of superannuation, to ensure professional autonomy, leadership stability and continuity.
“The question is whether these guidelines have made the DGPs any more independent in their functioning? The answer is no. They have to work in the manner chief ministers want them to function,” the retired officer said.
“Unless there is some systemic change, these academic exercises don’t make a difference.”
(Edited by Sugita Katyal)
Also Read: HC asks Telangana to explain why IPS officers hold IAS posts. Case could stir up the services’ net