Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: dgp appointment in Aloke Bihari Lal vs State Of Uttarakhand on 1 November, 2011Matching Fragments
(a) If the appointing authority has no jurisdiction to appoint;
(b) If the appointment has been made de-hors the Statutory Provisions, and;
(c) If the appointment is tainted with malafide. In the matter of appointment of respondent No. 5 as DGP, there is no violation of Section 20 (2) of the Uttarakhand Police Act (hereinafter referred as Act of 2007). Perusal of Section 20 of the Act is also relevant for appointment of DGP, and the same has been followed in the appointment of respondent No. 5. It is stated that the applicant as well as respondent No. 5 were eligible and considered for the post of DGP. It is nobodys case that the applicants case was not considered but the applicant has no indefeasible right to be appointed. The Judgment of the Honble Apex Court in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Manas Kumar Chakraborty & Others, reported in 2003 (2) SCC is also relevant for perusal and in this Judgment the Honble Apex Court held that the State Govt. must have highest confidence on the person who is going to be appointed as DGP, and the appointment of respondent No. 5 has been made as per Judgments of the Honble Apex Court and by following the procedure, as provided in the rules. There is no rule that the Selection Committee must record its reasoning in order to made recommendation for appointment, and when there is no such rule then the selection may be without recording the reason and there is no fault in doing so, and there are Judgments of the Honble Apex Court in this regard. Reliance has been placed on several Judgments of the Honble Apex Court in the Counter Affidavits of the respondents, which shall be considered at the relevant place. The appointment of respondent No. 5 ignoring the claim of applicant does not result in superseding the applicant. The representation was made by the applicant after Sri Subhash Joshi was appointed as DGP in the year 2007 as he was also direct recruit of 1976 and junior to the applicant in service. Similar controversy was raised before the Tribunal by R.C. Sharma in O.A. No. 866 of 2004 (R.C. Sharma Vs. U.O.I. & Others), and the Tribunal dismissed the O.A., copy of the Order has also been filed in the CA. It has also been alleged that the job of police is primarily governed by Rules and Manuals prepared on the law and therefore, their preparation is of paramount importance. The post of DGP is a sensitive post and only a person upon whom State Government has highest confidence, is appointed. The conduct and personality has also a predominant role in the appointment of DGP. It is stated that the appointment of respondent No. 5 has been made as per rules, and the O.A. lacks merits hence liable to be dismissed.
13. Considering the facts as emerged from the pleadings of parties as well as after hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, it is evident that the dispute in the present case is regarding appointment of DGP for the State of Uttarakhand, and that what should be the criteria for the State Government for appointment of the DGP in the State. It has been alleged by the applicant that he is an IPS officer of 1975 batch and was in the zone of consideration for appointment to the single cadre of post of DGP after superannuation of Mrs. Kanchan Chowdhary Bhattacharya, and at that time out of panel of three IPS officers irrespective of the fact that the applicant was senior most officer of 1975 batch, Sri Subhash Joshi of 1976 batch was appointed as DGP, State of Uttarakhand. We are not concerned regarding super session of the applicant in the year 2007 because the applicant himself has admitted that against the order of 31.10.2007, he had not filed an O.A., and only representation was made by the applicant to the State Govt., and that representation has not been decided. But the same situation has arisen in the year 2010 when on dated 15.07.2010 the post of DGP, Uttarakhand State felt vacant as a consequence of posting of the then DGP- Sri Subhash Joshi to the CRPF under the Government of India. It has also been alleged by the applicant that on 27.07.2010 in order to prepare the panel of three IPS officers, as provided in law, a screening committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary. Sri D.K. Kotiya, Principal Secretary (Personnel), and Sri Rajeev Gupta, Principal Secretary (Homes) were the members. In that meeting, the antecedents of senior most IPS officers of the cadre of Uttarakhand was considered, and as the applicant was the senior most IPS hence, his case was considered, and he was found possessing Outstanding remarks, and there was nothing adverse against him. He was posted in the State of Uttarakhand since its creation. Thereafter, the case of Sri Jyoti Swaroop Pandey, IPS of 1976 batch was considered. He was posted in the State of Uttarakhand in the month of June 2004, and he had been working as Additional Director Vigilance/Additional Director of Police Administration. The case of Sri Satyavrat-IPS of 1976 batch was also considered and after preparation of this panel, on 28.07.2010 it was placed before the Honble Chief Minister to approve the IPS officer as DGP, and the Honble Chief Minister approved the name of Sri Jyoti Swaroop Pandey. It has been alleged by the applicant that the applicant has been superseded twice as DGP first in the year 2007 applicant was superseded, and being the next senior most Sri Subhash Joshi was appointed as DGP and thereafter in the year 2010 applicant being the senior most IPS officer of the 1975 batch was superseded by giving appointment as DGP to Sri Jyoti Swaroop Pandey. Prayer has been made to quash the noting dated 28.07.2010 regarding appointment of Sri Jyoti Swaroop Pandey as DGP, State of Uttarakhand, and further prayer has been made for giving direction to the respondents to appoint the applicant on the post of DGP. The respondents in the Counter Affidavit has specifically alleged that the Police Act was enacted and implemented in the year 2008, and the directions of the Honble Apex Court in the case of Prakash Singhs case (supra) were followed, and appointment has been made in accordance with Section 20 of the Police Act, and there is no discrimination or malafide or arbitrariness in the case of appointment of respondent No. 5.
Provided that the number of officers in the panel shall not exceed three times the number of cadre posts, sanctioned for the rank of Director General of Police in the State.
(3) The Director General of Police, so appointed, shall have a minimum tenure of two years, subject to superannuation. Hence, in view of these provisions under Section 20 of the Act, the DGP shall be appointed from the panel of the officers, already working in the rank of DGP or the officers who have been found suitable in the rank of DGP after screening by the committee. According to provisions of this Section, the matter was considered for appointment of incumbent on the post of DGP. The screening committee was constituted by the Government and the screening committee prepared the panel of three officers working in the rank of DGP, and they were found more suitable. Thereafter, it is the discretion of the Government to appoint anyone to act as a DGP. Nothing more has been provided in the Act for the appointment of DGP. It has also been argued by learned counsel for the respondents that in various Judgments by the Honble Supreme Court as well as by the Division Bench of the CAT, it is being held that it is the discretion of the Chief Minister to appoint the DGP for the State. In this connection, learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the Judgment of Prakash Singhs case (supra). Relevant portion is reproduced as below: -
(i) OA No. 958/2010 & 1276/2010 P. Gautam Kumar IPS vs. UOI & Others (decided by CAT, Principal Bench on 27.04.2011);
(ii) OA No. 1807/2009 Shri J.K. Khanna vs. U.O.I. & Others (decided by CAT, Principal Bench on 07.12.2009) In the aforesaid Judgments, it has been held that it is the discretion of the State Government to appoint the DGP and nothing has been alleged by the applicant in the present case of malafide or biasness. We are of the opinion that it is the State who will have to make a final decision for the appointment of DGP for the State. Only a panel is to be prepared as per directions of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Singh (supra), and also the Police Act. In the present case, a panel of three senior most IPS officers was prepared and their antecedents were also considered, and thereafter screening committee placed the report before the Honble Chief Minister, and the Honble Chief Minister approved Respondent No. 5 for appointment. Hence, it cannot be said that there is favoritism in the appointment of respondent No. 5 because in all circumstances, a panel _of three IPS officers is to be prepared and out of three, only one is to be appointed. The IPS officer who is to be appointed as DGP must be the officer who enjoyed the confidence of the State Government. In the present case, it was the respondent No. 5 who was enjoying the confidence of the Chief Minister of the State of Uttarakhand for appointment as DGP. Considering the legal position, as has been held by the Honble Supreme Court in various Judgments, relief (a) in this O.A. cannot be granted to the applicant.