WB DGP Appointment | CAT Directs State Govt To Resubmit Proposal; Orders UPSC To Convene Empanelment Meeting By Jan 28
Rushil Batra
23 Jan 2026 1:40 PM IST
The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, has directed the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) to immediately constitute an Empanelment Committee for the appointment of the West Bengal Director General of Police (DGP).
It may be noted that West Bengal has not had a full-time DGP since December 2023. Acting DGP Rajeev Kumar is due to retire on 31 January.
It also directed the West Bengal government to resubmit the proposal for empanelment to the post to the UPSC on or before 23 January.
With this, the CAT granted interim relief to a senior IPS officer, Dr Rajesh Kumar, who had moved a plea seeking directions for timely empanelment for appointment as the Director General of Police, West Bengal, in accordance with the Supreme Court's ruling in Prakash Singh v. Union of India.
A Bench comprising Justice Ranjit More (Chairman) and Mr Rajinder Kashyap (Member A) was hearing the matter. It observed that the "right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right" and cannot be defeated by administrative delay.
The applicant is a 1990-batch IPS officer of the West Bengal cadre, presently serving as Principal Secretary, Department of Mass Education Extension and Library Sciences, Government of West Bengal. He is due to retire on 31 January, 2026.
He had approached the Tribunal seeking directions to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) to send a panel of three senior-most eligible IPS officers, including the applicant, for appointment to the post of Director General of Police, West Bengal, in line with the Supreme Court's directions in Prakash Singh.
Background:
The vacancy for the post of DGP (Head of Police Force) in West Bengal arose on 27 December 2023. However, the State of West Bengal forwarded the proposal for empanelment only on 16 July 2025, comprising the names of ten IPS officers, including the applicant.
UPSC, via a communication dated 31 December 2025, returned the proposal to the State, citing the delay and directing the State to seek clarification/leave from the Supreme Court.
In his plea, the officer contended that under Prakash Singh, the proposal ought to be forwarded at least three months before the vacancy arises, but despite the vacancy having arisen long ago, the State forwarded the proposal much later.
He further argued that, despite receipt of the proposal, the UPSC did not prepare the panel in accordance with the governing guidelines, and that any further delay would cause serious and irreversible prejudice, as he is due to superannuate on 31 January 2026.
It was finally submitted that the applicant's right to be considered for appointment to the post of DGP (HoPF) cannot be defeated by administrative delay.
UPSC opposed the plea and submitted that a meeting of the Empanelment Committee was held on 29 October 2025. However, owing to differences of opinion, the UPSC sought the Attorney General of India's opinion.
Counsel for UPSC also placed on record a policy decision dated 08 January 2026 regarding the handling of delayed proposals.
Tribuna's order
The Tribunal rejected UPSC's preliminary objections and noted that "prolonged inaction" by the Commission could not be ignored.
Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 864, the Tribunal observed that rules of procedure could not have been changed by UPSC during the pendency of empanelment proceedings which were initiated on 16 July 2025.
The Bench held that the policy introduced on 08 January 2026 cannot be applied retrospectively to the present case. It also noted that the statutory timelines for performing a duty are generally "directory and not mandatory."
The Tribunal also remarked that any delay attributable to the State (Respondent No. 3) cannot prejudice the applicant's fundamental right to be considered for appointment. Thus, granting interim relief, the Tribunal stayed the effect of the impugned communication dated 31 December 2025 and directed the State of West Bengal to resubmit the proposal by 23 January 2026.
It specifically directed thus:
(i) Respondent No. 3, State of West Bengal, will resubmit the proposal for empanelment to the post of DGP (HoPF) to respondent No. 1 on or before January 23, by email and through special messenger.
(ii) Respondent No. 1 will convene a meeting of the Empanelment Committee on or before January 28 and prepare the panel in accordance with the applicable guidelines and forward the same to respondent No. 3 on or before January 29.
(iii) Respondent No. 3 shall, thereafter, take an appropriate decision regarding appointment from the panel so received, as expeditiously as possible.
The matter has been listed next for March 11, 2026.
Title: Dr. Rajesh Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission and Ors
Case Number: O.A. No. 213/2026
Appearance: Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, assisted by Mr. Nipun Arora and Mr. Rohan Mandal, appeared for the Petitioner. Mr. R. V. Sinha, Mr. K. K. Sharma, Mr. Aman Sharma, Mr. Suryansh Singh, Mr. A. S. Singh, Ms. Shriya Sharma, and Ms. Jyoti Garg appeared for UPSC. Mr. Jalaj Agarwal appeared for the Union of India. Senior Advocate Mr. A. K. Behera, assisted by Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, Mr. Debanjan Mandal, Mr. Kartikey Bhatt, and Mr. Tanish Arora, appeared for the State of West Bengal.