DGP Appointment : Is Concurrence Of Officer On Central Deputation Necessary? Supreme Court Asks MHA
The Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha sought the response of the Central government on whether concurrence of an IPS officer, who is on Central government deputation, is necessary before his appointment as Director General of Police (DGP) in a State. The direction was passed in a plea concerning the appointment of DGP in the State of Nagaland....
The Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha sought the response of the Central government on whether concurrence of an IPS officer, who is on Central government deputation, is necessary before his appointment as Director General of Police (DGP) in a State. The direction was passed in a plea concerning the appointment of DGP in the State of Nagaland.
At the outset, the petitioner submitted that UPSC had only forwarded one name (Shri Rupin Sharma) to the State of Nagaland for the post of DGP. However, the name of another candidate, Mr. Sunil Achaya, who fulfilled the conditions of eligibility, was not forwarded. The counsel for UPSC submitted that Mr. Achaya's name was not submitted owing to his unwillingness to be posted as DGP in Nagaland and because he was on central deputation
CJI DY Chandrachud orally remarked–
"There was another officer who was eligible. Apparently UPSC didn't send his name on the ground that he said no. His saying yes or no is irrelevant. About central deputation, not going to step into that. If the government wants him to stay at a place- that is in interest of nation. But the officer cannot say no, because he is duty bound. The best way is to hold a meeting between the Secretary of Ministry of Home Affairs and the Secretary of Nagaland."
However, the counsel for UPSC reiterated that unwillingness of a person had always been considered. While noting the petitioner's submission that only consent for overseas posting was required in such cases and no such consent was needed for posting within country, CJI Chandrachud dictated the order and issued the following directions–
(i) MHA shall file an affidavit before this Court within a week indicating whether the concurrence of the officer is necessary before empanelling the officer for appointment as Director General of Police of the State where the officer is on central deputation;
(ii) In the event that the concurrence of the officer is required according to MHA, the specific rule requiring such concurrence shall be adverted to in the affidavit;
(iii) MHA shall clarify whether the services of Shri A Sunil Achaya, who is on central deputation, are required due to the exigencies of service on central deputation or whether he can be empanelled for the post of Director General of Police, Nagaland in view of the fact that a sufficient number of eligible officers is not available for being empanelled for the 2 “MHA” 7 State of Nagaland; and
(iv) MHA shall place on record its communication by which it had concurred with the proposal which was submitted by UPSC on 15 November 2022 allowing it to relax the eligibility criterion from 30 years to 25 years, inter alia, in the State of Nagaland
The matter has now been listed for 23rd January 2023.
CASE TITLE: Prakash Singh And Ors. v. Union of India WP(C) No. 310/1996; Nagaland Law Students Federation And Anr. v. J. Alam And Ors. Conmt Pet(C) No. 13/2023 in WP(C) No. 310/1996