Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

17. It was further contended that pursuant to the directions of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Prakash Singh's Case (I), UPSC framed Guidelines for appointment of DGPs of States, but no such Guidelines were framed for appointment of Police Commissioner/Head of Police Force in Union Territories, appointed from the AGMUT Cadre. From 2006 onwards, the Central Government, the State Governments and UPSC have understood and applied the directions issued in Prakash Singh's Case only for appointment of DGP of State, which has a dedicated State Cadre and sufficient number of officers available in Pay-Level 16 Pool, for constitution of a panel, for appointment of DGP, which is a Pay-Level 17 Rank and pertinently, these Guidelines framed by the UPSC were also placed before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court.

44. In our view, the aforesaid contentions do not merit acceptance. Reading of the directions issued by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, in the decisions rendered in Prakash Singh's Case (I); order dated 03.07.2018 in I.A. 25307/2018 in W.P.(C) 310/1996 in Prakash Singh's Case (I) and the directions in Prakash Singh's Case (II), makes it clear that the directions given by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and the principles culled out therein were in effect applicable for appointment to the post of „DGP of a State‟, to be selected by the State Government, from amongst the three senior most officers of the Department, who have been empanelled by UPSC for promotion to the said rank. The judgement and the directions therein, have no application for appointment of Commissioners/Police Heads of Union Territories falling under the AGMUT Cadre. Respondent No.2 has been appointed as Commissioner of Police, Delhi, which is a Union Territory, having a Legislative Assembly, in accordance with provisions of Article 239AA of the Constitution of India. The directions given by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in paragraph 31 of Prakash Singh's Case (I), make it explicitly clear that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court was considering the appointment of DGP of the State and not the Head of a Police Force for a Union Territory and therefore there was no occasion to pass directions applicable to appointment of a Head of Police Force in a Union Territory. The peculiar set up of Union Territories and the lack of pool of sufficient officers in the appropriate Pay-Level, with requisite experience, in the AGMUT cadre, as highlighted by learned Solicitor General and not disputed by the Petitioner and the Intervener, lead to an inevitable conclusion that application of the UPSC Guidelines, flowing from the directions of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, to Union Territories will create an anomalous situation, which would be completely unworkable. For ready reference, paragraph 31 is extracted hereinunder:-

48. In order to substantiate the point that it is not possible to follow the regime provided for selection of a State DGP, in case of the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, in particular and for the Union Territories having a common AGMUT Cadre, in general, Respondent No. 1 has, by way of illustration, categorically averred in paragraph 26 of the counter affidavit that in Arunachal Pradesh, only one post of DGP had been sanctioned and there is no sanctioned post of ADGP. Thus, it is impossible to prepare a panel of three officers for empanelment by the UPSC, for appointment of DGP. Likewise, in Puducherry, highest sanctioned post is at IG level. As per UPSC Guidelines, IG level officers and DIG level officers with 18 years of service are eligible for inclusion in the zone of consideration for heading the Force. However, considering that only one IGP and one DIG post had been sanctioned, a panel of three officers is unavailable. Additionally, in the presence of an IGP level officer in the segment, an officer of DIG level cannot head the Police Force in that segment. A similar situation exists in Mizoram and in Goa, as brought out in the counter affidavit. None of these facts/data have been disputed by the Petitioner/Intervener. On account of the unavailability of sufficient number of officers in the pool in respect of various segments of AGMUT Cadre, we cannot but agree with Respondent No. 1 that the State Cadres have to be treated differently from the AGMUT Cadre, for the purpose of empanelment of the respective Heads of the Police Force and there is thus merit in the contention that the directions of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Prakash Singh's Case (I) were intended to apply only to the appointment of a State DGP. We also find merit in the contention that in a given case, Pay-Level 15 IPS officers may be available and technically eligible to be a part of the zone of consideration, but it would not be a preferred or a desirable course of action to empanel the said officers, superseding a Pay-Level 16 officer for appointment as DGP, as this would have a demoralising and deleterious effect on the entire Police Force and the officers of the concerned segment, in particular.

61. Learned Solicitor General had highlighted that ever since the year 2006, the Guidelines framed by the UPSC and the directions in Prakash Singh's Case (I) and (II) have been understood to apply only for appointment of a State DGP, by all stakeholders such as the Central Government, State Governments and UPSC, because every State has a dedicated State cadre and sufficient number of officers are available in Pay- Level 16, from which a panel for appointment of DGP, which is in Pay- Level 17, can be constituted. Moreover, it was a categorical stand of Respondent No. 1 that with the said understanding, as many as 8 erstwhile Police Commissioners in Delhi, have been appointed by the Central Government since 2006, prior to the appointment of Respondent No.2, following the same procedure as has been followed for appointment of Respondent No.2 herein. There has never been any objection to the said appointments following the statutory procedure prescribed under the Delhi Police Act, 1978 read with Transaction of Business of GNCTD Rules, 1993 either by UPSC or any other party. There is no denial to the said categorical averment, either by the Petitioner or the Intervener, except for making a bald argument that past practice cannot justify the alleged illegal appointment of Respondent No. 2, with which we do not agree for the reasons hereinafter.