After Bombay High Court's Stinging Observations On DGP Appointment, Maharashtra Govt Decides To Reconsider Its Stand

Until now, the State had maintained that the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) has erred in not considering Pandey's name and one of the three candidates for the post owing to a factual error and urged UPSC to reconsider its decision.

However, Pandey, who found himself in an odd situation emphasised how he had suffered, irrespective of the government in power; how he was forced to litigate at every step of his career to remedy injustices done to him, and that he is the last person in the force who could be called blue-eyed.

Meanwhile, the bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice MS Karnik accepted the State's statement and sought to be informed about the decision and closed arguments. The court was hearing a PIL seeking appointment of a permanent DGP in Maharashtra in accordance with the Supreme Court's judgement on Prakash Singh's case as also the removal of Pandey as acting DGP.

The petitioner alleged malafide against Pandey and stated that the Supreme Court judgement mandates the State to appoint its DGP from one of the names recommended by the UPSC.

During the hearing, the bench went through several files submitted by the state government pertaining to Pandey's Annual Confidential Reports (ACR). It noted that the state government had on a much belated stage changed one of his performance ratings.

"Respondent No 5 (Sanjay Pandey) happens to be the blue-eyed officer of the State Government. Once he is appointed as the DGP, he will not be in a position to discharge his duty in accordance with Prakash Singh's Judgement. There would be a give and take. The state has gone out of its way to change his ratings.… such an officer should never be appointed as DGP."

The court then asked the Advocate General Ashutosh Kumbhakoni to remain present physically. After a brief private discussion, Senior Advocate Navroz Seervai for Pandey completed his arguments.

Seervai argued that even if the increased ACR was not taken into account or ignored, Pandey would still be entitled for empanelment according to the rules. "It is my case that on November 1, 2021 when the UPSC empanelment committee was considering the prospective candidates, in which my name was second, every single one of my ACRs for every single period was 7 and above."

He said by refusing to even consider his name the UPSC had in fact not adhered to the Supreme Court's guidelines. Therefore, the UPSC's decision shouldn't be enforced.

Seervai urged the court to see his representations to understand that he was far for being the blue-eyed boy.

"My lords may see, I (Pandey) is far from being the blue-eyed boy of anybody. What I have suffered in the hands of governments irrespective of who was in power. And how I have had to litigate for 15 years to remedy the injustices done to me. Including a case where for 15 years I was not given an assignment and kept hanging and dangling."

"For 10 years deliberately there were no ACRs for me, contrary to what was required. And on the basis that there were no ACRs to consider. I was consistently overlooked for promotion despite being entitled. I had to go to CAT and from there the Delhi HC. Twice thereafter before the Bombay High Court."

Seervai said he wasn't denying procedural lapses but to say he is blue eyed is contrary to Pandey's record and what he has done to persevere from 2000.

The High Court had on Wednesday directed Kumbhakoni to submit the said files following submissions by the petitioner's counsel Abhinav Chandrachud and the Union government's counsel Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh, who had argued that Pandey's request for reassessment of his grades from the year 2011-2012 had been declined by the state referral board in 2019.

However, Pandey wrote to the board again in 2021 with the same request, and this time, the board increased his score of 5.6 to 8, without ascribing any reasons. Chandrachud and Singh had told the court that there was no legal provision for such reassessment.

According to the PIL, in November 1, 2021, the UPSC selection committee had held a meeting in New Delhi to shortlist three names from a list of 18 IPS officers for the post of Maharashtra DGP that was left vacant mid-term after Subodh Jaiswal was transferred to the CBI as the central agency's director. Pandey was appointed as the acting Maharashtra DGP by the state government.