SC Directions In Prakash Singh Case For DGP Appointment Not Applicable To Union Territories: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Singh & Others v. Union of India for appointment of Police Chiefs by the Union Public Service Commission are applicable only to the States. "The judgement and the directions therein, have no application for appointment of Commissioners/Police Heads of Union Territories falling under the AGMUT Cadre," the Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh ruled. The development comes during dismissal of a petition challenging the appointment of IPS Officer Rakesh Asthana as the Commissioner of Delhi Police. Delhi Police Commissioner, Rakesh Asthana is a 1984-batch Gujarat cadre IPS officer who took charge as Delhi Police Commissioner in July 2021, on inter-cadre deputation. Four days before this retirement, the Ministry of Home Affairs issued the order of his appointment as Delhi Police Commissioner thereby extending his service initially for a period of one year beyond the date of his superannuation on 31.07.2021. The Petitioner/ Intervenor in the matter had claimed that Asthana's appointment was made in sheer violation of the Prakash Singh & Others v. Union of India case (Both I and II).What was held in Prakash Singh case? Therein, the Supreme Court had directed that: DGP of the State shall be selected by the State Government from amongst the three senior-most officers of the Department who have been empanelled for promotion to that rank by UPSC on the basis of their length of service, very good record and range of experience for heading the Police Force.The DGP should have a minimum tenure of at least two years, irrespective of his date of superannuation.The candidates recommended by UPSC for the said post should have a minimum residual tenure of six months i.e. officers who have at least six months of service prior to the retirement. Petitioner's Arguments It was the Petitioner/ Intervenor's case that the post of Delhi Police Commissioner is akin to the post of DGP of the State and therefore directions in Prakash Singh's Case are required to be followed by the Central Government while making an appointment to the said post. It was contended that in contravention of the said directions, Asthana was appointed without being empanelled by UPSC, besides the fact that he did not have a residual tenure of six months of service, at the time of his appointment, since he was retiring within four days of the appointment. Additionally, it was argued that Asthana has been appointed for a period of only one year, beyond his date of superannuation, though the Supreme Court clearly directed that a minimum two years tenure must be available to the appointee. It was also their case that Asthana's appointment sends a signal that the officers in AGMUT cadre are not competent to lead the Police Force and will thus have a demoralizing effect on them. Centre's Stand The Centre on the other hand claimed that the final operative directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Singh for empanelling by UPSC, selection of minimum tenure, etc. are applicable to State for appointment of DGPs, and have no application for appointment to the post of Commissioner/Police Head of a Union Territory, falling under the AGMUT Cadre. It was contended that pursuant to the directions issued in Prakash Singh's Case, UPSC framed Guidelines for appointment of DGPs of States in 2006, but no such Guidelines were framed for appointment of Police Commissioner/Head of Police Force in Union Territories, appointed from the AGMUT Cadre. The Centre also pointed out that in terms of the judgment in Prakash Singh's Case, Head of Police Force in the State i.e. DGP Rank Officer attains Pay-Level 17 after selection, from the eligible DGP level Officers in Pay-Level 16. However, in AGMUT Cadre, there never exists a situation where sufficient number of Pay-Level 16 DG Rank Officers are available in one segment, with thirty years of service and six months of residual service, for empanelment by UPSC. It was further highlighted that since 2006, eight appointments have been made following similar procedure. However, none of them were challenged by the Petitioner and it is only Asthana's appointment that is bothering them. Findings The Court gave the following reasons for concluding that directions issued by the Supreme Court in the Prakash Singh's Case are indeed applicable only for appointment to the post of "DGP of a State", and not the Union Territories: 1. Application of Supreme Court directions to Union Territories will create an "anomalous situation" for the reason that UTs lack of pool of sufficient officers in the appropriate Pay-Level, with requisite experience, in the AGMUT cadre. The High Court held that if directions issued in Prakash Singh's Case are to apply in the case of Union Territories/AGMUT...

SC Directions In Prakash Singh Case For DGP Appointment Not Applicable To Union Territories: Delhi High Court

Akshita Saxena

Tags