Maharashtra Govt Appoints DGP From UPSC Panel, Bombay High Court Disposes Of Advocate's PIL

A division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice MS Karnik observed that nothing survives in the PIL after the appointment of IPS officer Rajnish Seth as the new DGP on February 18.

The state decided to reconsider its decision after the High Court observed that the state had gone out of it's way to push the case of its senior most IPS officer - Sanjay Pandey's name for DGP.

Until then, the State had maintained that the UPSC erred in not considering Pandey's name as 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.

The PIL was filed by Advocate Datta Mane. Advocate Abhinav Chandrachud argued that he was seeking enforcement of guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Prakash Singh's case on police reforms. According to the judgement, the State ought to appoint its DGP from UPSC's recommendation. Moreover, IPS officer Sanjay Pandey who was appointed as acting DGP in April 2021, after the post fell vacant, could not be permitted to continue to hold office as there was no concept of acting DGP, Mane claimed.

Pandey was appointed as acting DGP last April after IPS officer Subodh Kumar Jaiswal was appointed as director of Central Bureau of Investigation. The petitioner alleged malafide against Pandey.

The three names UPSC-recommended on November 1, 2021, were of IPS officers: Hemant Nagrale, Rajnish Seth and K Venkatesham.

Initially, Advocate General Ashutosh Kumbhakoni had submitted that the then Chief Secretary Sitaram Kunte had written to the UPSC committee on November 8, stating that Pandey was left out due to an improper application of the Department of Personnel and Training guidelines(DOPT).

However, the bench had observed that Kunte was part of the November 1 UPSC meeting, and signed on the proceedings. But, he failed to object at the time. "Once a selection committee member has signed the proceedings, it is not open to him at a subsequent stage to renege from the selection," Chief Justice Dipankar Datta orally observed, relying on the Supreme Court judgement of Chancellor vs Dr Bijay Ananda Kar.

Later, 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 at a much belated stage changed one of his performance ratings.

However, Senior Advocate Navroz Seervai, appearing for Pandey, 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.

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

"My lords may see, I (Pandey) am far from being the blue-eyed boy of anybody. What I have suffered at 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 had 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 the year 2000.

Case Title: Datta Mane vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 46