Haryana: Despite IFS officers’ shortage, Hooda posted officer education department in 2010

“It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the state that from the file it is evident that posting of Alok Verma, IFS, was desired by the then chief minister. There is nothing on record regarding his qualification/experience. The posting was sought to be justified by taking different stands at different times,” Justice Bindal observed.

[related-post]

When the government made a reference to the central government seeking ex-post facto approval of Verma’s posting outside cadre, the court expressed surprise that the officer has been posted in the education department despite the forest department facing a shortage. There are 51 IFS officers against the sanctioned strength of 69 in Haryana.

Dhesi had also submitted that a proposal was sent by the forests and wildlife department in 2013 to the personnel department stating that there was stagnation of IFS officers who have completed 20-29 years of service at the level of chief conservator forests and additional principal chief conservator forests and still not promoted.

The court, however, said,“Alok Verma, IFS, who is stated to be 1989 batch, had merely 25 years of total service to his credit, when he was sent to the education department. The affidavit is silent on the aspect as to whether there is any such policy for any other departments also where there may be stagnation. The affidavit is also silent as to whether Alok Verma had completed 20-29 years of service at the level of chief conservator forests and additional principal chief conservator forests, justifying his case on the basis of stagnation.”

It was in February that Justice Bindal had asked the state government to justify posting of IFS officer in the education department in the light of the fact that “in case there is no work in forest department, why there is need to keep an additional officer there and why the work of education department is not being taken care of by an officer from the education department ?”

Later in May, court had directed the CS to explain regarding “competence of the officers available in the state and if in the opinion of the state, the officers in the department are not competent, why they have been retained in service?”