'There Can't Be Two Matters': Delhi HC Adjourns Challenge To Rakesh Asthana's Appointment As DPC In View Of CPIL's Plea Before SC

The Delhi High Court today adjourned hearing of a plea challenging appointment of IPS Officer Rakesh Asthana as the Delhi Police Commissioner in view of the fact that a similar petition has been filed before the Supreme Court by Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL).

A Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh observed that to avoid duplicity of proceedings and the likelihood of contradictory orders, the matter is adjourned.

On the last date, the Court had asked the Government to apprise it if any other petition raising similar issues has been filed. Accordingly, Advocate Prashant Bhushan, counsel for CPIL, informed the Bench that a petition on the subject issue has been moved before the Supreme Court and is likely to come up for preliminary hearing tomorrow.

"I am not appearing in this matter. But I have filed a similar petition before the Supreme Court, challenging Asthana's appointment. The petition is filed on behalf of Centre for Public Interest Litigation. It was filed on August 10 and is likely to come for preliminary hearing tomorrow," Bhushan informed the Bench.

Whereas the Government counsels denied being aware of any such proceedings, the Court adjourned the matter.

Filed by one Sadre Alam through Advocate BS Bagga, the instant petition challenges the order dated July 27 issued by the Central Government granting inter-cadre deputation and extension of service to Asthana. It emphasizes that Asthana was appointed as Delhi Police Commissioner four days before he was due to retire on his superannuation on July 31.

The Petitioner  highlighted that Asthana does not fall in any statutory category (Fundamental Rules 56 of DoPT) where appointment can be extended beyond age of retirement. It further submitted that Asthana's appointment is violative of the authoritative pronouncement made by the Supreme Court in Prakash Singh v. Union of India.

The Respondents on the other hand have argued that the Delhi Police operates very differently and the Prakash Singh judgment is not applicable in the case. It also questioned the locus standi of the Petitioner and submitted that a PIL is not maintainable in service matters and claimed that it has become a practice of the "so-called integrity keepers" to challenge any and every government appointment.

So far as the plea filed by CPIL before the Top Court is concerned, it is highlighted: (i) Asthana did not have a minimum residual tenure of six months; (ii) No UPSC panel was formed for the appointment of Delhi Police Commissioner; and (iii) The criteria of having a minimum tenure of two years has been ignored.

"The post of Commissioner of Police in Delhi is akin to the post of DGP of a State and he is the Head of Police Force for the NCT of Delhi and therefore, the directions concerning the appointment to the post of DGP passed by this Hon'ble Court in the Prakash Singh case (supra) had to be followed by the Central Government while making the impugned appointment," states the plea. 

Case Title: SADRE ALAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS