Plea Of Bias Can't Be Taken After Participating In Selection Process With Knowledge About Composition Of Panel : Supreme Court

While rejecting the challenge against the appointment of Dinkar Gupta IPS as the Punjab Director General of Police in 2019, the Supreme Court observed that a person can't take the plea of bias after having participated in the selection process with full knowledge about the composition of the selection panel.In this case, the appellant officer, who challenged the DGP's appointment, argued that the selection was vitiated due to the presence of the incumbent DGP in the empanelment committee, as he had professional proximity with Dinkar Gupta.The Supreme Court turned down this argument, noting that the presence of incumbent DGP in the committee was a legal requirement, as per the directions issued in the Prakash Singh case. The appellant, being an IPS officer, was aware about the presence of the incumbent DGP in the selection process. Therefore, he can't raise this plea of bias after participating in the process. "When a person takes a chance and participates, thereafter he cannot, because the result is unpalatable, turn around to contend that the process was unfair or the selection committee was not properly constituted", the bench remarked. The judgement was delivered by a bench of Justices L.Nageswara Rao, Sanjiv Khanna and B.R.Gavai in the case Mohd. Mustafa v Union of India. The judgement authored by Justice L Nageswara Rao upholds the validity of the High Court judgement which had set aside the Central Administrative Tribunal's finding that the appointment of the DGP was liable to be set for not being in compliance with the Prakash Singh guidelines, among other grounds. Background of the Matter The Central Administrative Tribunal had set aside the order appointing Mr.Dinkar Gupta as the DGP of Punjab on the ground that that preparation of panel for selection of DGP was in contravention of the Prakash Singh v Union of India case of 2006. According to the Tribunal- Seniority being one of the factors, along with good record of service and range of experience to head a police force was not given importance by the Empanelment Committee in finalising the panelDraft Guidelines framed by UPSC had no legality. Identification of five core policing areas out of twenty is biased and selected to suit the selected candidate. The decision was challenged and the High Court set aside the judgement of the Tribunal and upheld the appointment of Respondent No.4 as DGP. It noted that: The conclusion of the Tribunal that Draft Guidelines have no authenticity must be set aside as they have been approved by the Apex Court. There is no requirement for recording reasons while finalising the selection of DGPsTribunal encroached into the domain of experts in setting aside the selection made by UPSC. Contentions Raised before the Court Mr.Krishnan Venuopal for the Appellant argued that appointment of Respondent No.4(Gupta) was vitiated by bias due to prior professional antecedents between Respondent No.5(outgoing DGP) and the Appellant and for that reason Respondent No.5 ought not to have participated in the selection process. Relying upon Badrinath v. State of T.N, the counsel has submitted that even if one person of the multi-member committee is biased, the decision of the committee shall be rendered invalid. It was further argued that the the Draft Guidelines are contrary to the directions given by this Court in Prakash Singh's case. Mr.Mukul Rohatgi appearing for State of Punjab argued that identification of five core policing areas from amongst twenty policing areas for assessment of merit of officers was done by the Empanelment Committee by taking into account the special needs of the State of Punjab. Regarding the allegation of bias, it was submitted that the Appellant was fully aware of initiation of the process for appointment of DGP and the presence of Respondent No.5 in the Committee but did not raise any objection to his continuance in the Empanelment Committee. The Appellant cannot be permitted to raise a bogey of bias at this late hour.Court's Reasoning The judgement notes that the Draft Guidelines cannot be said to be contrary to the criteria laid down by this Court in Prakash Singh's case as the Guidelines carry forward the directions given by this Court by stipulating the objective criteria for guidance of the empanelment committees. It notes: "There is no basis for the conclusion of the Tribunal that the Draft Guidelines are contrary to the directions given by this Court in Prakash Singh's case. The broad criteria mentioned in the said case are seniority, very good record of service and range of experience to head a police force. The Draft Guidelines which have to be scrupulously followed by empanelment committees stipulate that a selection should be on the same criteria." (Para 26) Further, it notes: "Inter se merit of the candidates was evaluated according to...

Plea Of Bias Can't Be Taken After Participating In Selection Process With Knowledge About Composition Of Panel : Supreme Court

Sneha Rao

Tags