Maharashtra DGP Appointment: Can State Asks UPSC To Review Recommendations? Bombay High Court Asks

"Take, for example, a case where an officer has been completely excluded. Does the UPSC then not have the power to reconsider its recommendation? … Does the State have a semblance of a right to call upon UPSC committee to review decision?," a bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice MS Karnik asked.

The court was hearing a PIL against the Maharashtra Government's failure to appoint a Director General of Police from the three names recommended by the UPSC's selection committee in November 2021. In the case at hand, the Maharashtra government appointed the senior most IPS officer Sanjay Pandey as acting DGP in April 2021.

The Advocate General submitted that the Chief Secretary had written to the UPSC before their recommendations were communicated to him that Pandey was left out from consideration due to an improper application of a Rule.

"After having worked all throughout his career when he is about to reach the pinnacle, he ought not to be left out of consideration zone on an incorrect application of rule. As a state, I can only bring it to the notice of UPSC and leave it at that," the AG said, clarifying that the State has not decided on appointing him but was only seeking his empanelment.

Yesterday, the bench had orally observed that it was improper on the Chief Secretary's part to write to UPSC later and not ensure that his dissent was recorded when UPSC's meeting was held, on November 1.

"The more you argue the more you show the former Chief Secretary in poor light," the CJ said.

In response to the bench's query whether the UPSC's erroneous decision was binding on the State, Advocate Abhinav Chandrachud for the petitioner said,

"Generally speaking there can be no argument with the proposition, that if there is a serious infirmity or a glaring error, something very clearly has been left out, then the state can ask the Public Service Commission to reconsider in light of some fresh material."

However, Chandrachud warned that if this was regarding the highest police post holder in the state, there is a great fear amongst the citizenry that the administration of law and order is falling into political hands.

ASG Anil Singh for the Union submitted that the Supreme Court's judgement in Prakash Singh's case mandated that the State select its DGP from the three names recommended by the UPSC and that there was no concept of acting DGP. "The Chief Secretary participated in the meeting. So there has to be some sanctity of the empanelment committee," he said.

Meanwhile, IPS officer Sanjay Pandey sought to intervene in the PIL being the most "vitally affected party." "He is the senior most officer in the State and a man of great integrity. I would show his record and demonstrate a gross palpable patent error by the UPSC supported by the Chief Secretary's letter, which nobody has denied the correctness of. Nobody," Senior Advocate Navroz Seervai said.

The Chief Justice and Seervai got into a heated verbal exchange after the former questioned Pandey's right to join a party and adjourned the matter till Thursday.

"Neither have you nor has the State challenged the recommendations in a court of law. Yet you want that while hearing this PIL we should examine if the recommendations are correct?" the Chief retorted. While the CJ noted that the court was giving him a listening ear today, Seervai insisted it was only half a chance.

Seervai read SC judgments to show he need not have a 'right' for him to be heard and demonstrating that he would be affected by the court's decision was enough. Before closing the matter for orders, the CJ allowed Seervai to place his brief written notes on record by Thursday.