New Delhi, Sep 29 In a scathing observation, the Supreme Court on Tuesday said that most states tend not to follow the judgment in the Prakash Singh case aimed at having DGPs of their choosing.
The observation was made by a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana while reserving its order on pleas challenging the process followed by the Odisha government in selecting candidates for appointment of the state's director general of police (DGP).
On September 24, the bench asked the Odisha government if it had put a senior IPS officer, whose name was excluded from a list of officers being considered for the DGP's post, in the category of accused after the CBI stated that he might need to be questioned in a recruitment exam scam case.
While reserving the verdict, the CJI said that the bench would see whether the appointment of the DGP in Odisha and Jharkhand was made according to the directions issued by the apex court in the Prakash Singh judgment.
"The state would like to derail the appointment process and do not want to follow the Prakash Singh (judgment)... they want to have the DGP of their choice," the CJI said.
The top court also came down heavily on the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), which was tasked by it to shortlist three names of senior Indian Police Service (IPS) officers amongst the list provided by states for appointment as the DGP, for its casual approach.
"The casual approach is reflected everywhere, and you are in a position of trust conferred by this court. First of all, it is very difficult to reconcile the composition of the (UPSC) committee itself. This is all just an eyewash.
"The appointment of DGPs is governed by judicial orders of this court. Every state has to satisfy us that the appointment is in accordance with the orders of this court…," the CJI said.
The bench heard arguments on a PIL and other pleas alleging that the Odisha government was seeking to include a relatively junior officer in the zone of consideration for the DGP's post contrary to the directions issued by the apex court in the 2006 judgment.
The exclusion of senior IPS officer Sushant Kumar Nath from the list after the CBI informed the state that he might be required to be examined in connection with an investigation into the Odisha Police recruitment examination was also deliberated upon in the hearing.
The Odisha government had initially forwarded a panel of 11 senior IPS officers to the UPSC in May for consideration for the DGP's post. Nath's name was subsequently withdrawn after the CBI's communication.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Odisha, told the bench that the CBI had informed the state on August 4 that Nath, who was chairman of the Odisha Police Recruitment Board when the examination was conducted, "may be required to be examined" after necessary permission was obtained and officials concerned were examined.
The state subsequently withheld Nath's integrity certificate and forwarded a revised proposal containing integrity certificates for 10 officers, the court was told.
The solicitor general said the state had reviewed the integrity certificates of all eligible officers as a measure of "abundant caution and due diligence".
Justice Bagchi, however, questioned whether the material supplied by the CBI showed that Nath had actually been named as an accused.
Senior advocate Karuna Nundy, appearing for Nath, submitted that there was no FIR naming the officer as an accused.
A substantial part of the hearing concerned the state's decision to expand the pool of officers being considered for the DGP post.
The solicitor general referred to the promotion of IPS officers Sanjeev Kumar Panda and Yashwant Kumar Jethwa to the DGP grade in Level 16.
He said that both officers had been eligible for promotion from January 1, 2024, after completing 30 years of service, but their promotion had been delayed.
The law officer said that the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) had on August 9 cleared the creation of two temporary ex-cadre posts in the DGP grade at Level 16.
The law officer said that the UPSC guidelines permit a state to send names of Level 16 officers as well as officers at Level 15 who were likely to attain Level 16 by the time the selection process was completed.
The solicitor general said that suitability, rather than seniority alone, is relevant because the officer selected would head the state police force.
The bench, however, examined the sequence in which Level 16 and Level 15 officers could be included in the zone of consideration.
The solicitor general said the state had a justification for sending additional names after two officers were promoted from Level 15 to Level 16.
Recently, Odisha has appointed senior IPS officer Vinaytosh Mishra as acting DGP after incumbent Y B Khurania's retirement on August 16.
The 2006 apex court verdict and subsequent directions in the Prakash Singh case had said the DGP of a 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 the UPSC on the basis of their length of service, very good record and range of experience for heading the police force".
Once a person has been selected for the job, they should have a minimum tenure of at least two years irrespective of the date of superannuation, it had said.
