New Delhi/Bhubaneswar: The Supreme Court on Wednesday deferred hearing over an application seeking vacation of the interim order in the ongoing dispute over the appointment of next Director General of Police (DGP) in Odisha to September 7.
A bench of the Apex Court comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana was scheduled to hear the petition. However, the matter was subsequently listed for September 7.
Meanwhile, the Amicus Curiae appointed to assist the Supreme Court has submitted his report in the case.
The Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) has been asked not to finalise till September 7 the names of probable officers for appointment of the DGP of Odisha.
The petitioners alleged that the Odisha government was trying to include junior officers in the list of probable candidates for the DGP post in breach of the apex court’s directions in the 2006 Prakash Singh case.
It is pertinent to mention that the dispute is rooted in the Supreme Court’s landmark Prakash Singh police-reforms judgment. Under the Court’s directions, the state DGP is to be selected from a panel prepared by the UPSC, with consideration given to factors including service record, experience and merit.
During previous hearing on August 18, the Supreme Court recorded that the State of Odisha had filed its counter affidavit, while the UPSC had also filed its counter affidavit concerning Odisha’s proposal.
During an earlier hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the state government, informed the court that Odisha had already filed its response. The state has maintained that promotion of senior IPS officers is part of normal administrative process and it is entitled to send a fresh proposal to the UPSC comprising officers who fulfil the prescribed eligibility criteria.
The bench said that the reply of the state government was not on record. The CJI said he would like to go through the reply of the state government. The bench then deferred the hearing on the plea to September 2, while directing that the “interim directions” continue.
Earlier, the top court had asked the UPSC not to finalise till August 18 the names of probable officers for appointment of the DGP of Odisha.
Senior advocate P Chidambaram, representing the petitioner before a bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, argued that Odisha initially sent names of three DG-rank officers – Sudhanshu Sarangi, R P Koche, and Susanta Kumar Nath. The pool was then expanded to 11 officers by adding eight Additional Director General (ADG)-rank officers. The government later withdrew the proposal from the UPSC after it raised questions about including ADGP-rank officers in the panel. Two Additional Directors General of Police Sanjeeb Panda and Yeshwant Kumar Jethwa are promoted to DG rank on August 10.
Petitioners alleged that this tactical elevation was designed to smuggle junior officers into the consideration pool ahead of the scheduled selection committee meeting. Advocate General Pitambar Acharya, representing the Odisha government, strongly refuted the allegations, stating that no rules had been violated. He also questioned the maintainability of a PIL in service-related matters.
Meanwhile, 1993-batch IPS officer Vinaytosh Mishra, head of the CID Crime Branch, has taken charges as interim chief of police amid the ongoing legal disputes over a permanent successor of Y B Khurania, who retired from service 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.
On August 11, the apex court had agreed to hear the plea. Chidambaram had said the matter was being raised through a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) because serving police officers awaiting appointment as DGP would ordinarily be reluctant to challenge the state government.
The outcome of the hearing will determine whether the state must reinstate its original senior panel or if a fresh empanelment process under UPSC oversight will proceed.
