Nagaland DGP Appointment : Supreme Court Refuses To Relax Minimum Experience Criteria, Directs Appointment Of Rupin Sharma IPS

The order was passed in an application filed by the State of Nagaland seeking a direction to the UPSC to strictly comply with the mandate in Prakash Singh v. Union of India and include the name of Mr. A. Sunil Acharya in the panel of eligible officers for appointment to the post of DGP, Nagaland. On a previous occasion the Bench had been apprised the Mr. Acharya was on Central Deputation and he had not consented to be empaneled for appointment as DGP, Nagaland. Accordingly, the Apex Court had sought some clarifications from the Union Ministry of Home Affairs in this regard. On Monday, appearing before a Bench comprising the Chief Justice of India, D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Additional Solicitor General, Mr. Sanjay Jain apprised it that the concerned officer who is on Central deputation is assigned to a posting as Additional Secretary in the Cabinet Secretariat. Given the nature of the posting it would not be possible to relieve him for the empanelment. However, Mr. Jain clarified that there was no rule that the concurrence of the officer ought to be taken for being empanelled for appointment as DGP.

The Counsel for the State relying on the decision of Prakash Singh v. Union of India argued that the DGP ought to be selected by the State Government from a panel of the 3 senior most officers. The empanelment is to be done by the UPSC on the basis of length of service, good record and experience for heading the police force. As per UPSC’s 2009 guidelines preparation of panel for appointment of DGP, which is based on the promotion guidelines issued by MHA, in 1999, in respect of IPS officers the eligibility criteria for empanelment is stipulated as -

1. officers who belong to IPS of the concerned cadre not below the rank of ADG and
2. officers who have completed 30 years service as on the date of the occurrence of vacancy

However, the UPSC observed that in some States like Himachal Pradesh, Manipur, Nagaland, Uttarakhand, Tripura and Sikkim, there are not sufficient officers with the requisite years of service (30 years). Hence it sought for relaxation of the criterion. In its response, MHA, being cadre controlling commission of IPS officers, informed the UPSC that it has no objection if the 30 years eligibility is relaxed to 25 years where sufficient number of eligible officers are not available to form a panel of 3 officers.

The Bench noted that though the directions in Prakash Singh provide that the State shall appoint to the post of DGP from a panel of 3 senior most officers, it clarified that the same would not imply that the State would be at liberty to bypass the requirements of the decision if there are less than 3 officers in the panel.

The Counsel for the State of Nagaland has also asked the UPSC to relax the criterion of minimum years of service for being considered for empanelment from 30 years to 25 years, so that the poll of officers from where the 3-member panel is increased. In counter, the UPSC has argued that it is not open to the State to insist on the relaxation of mandatory criterion. Moreover, it pointed out that Mr Rupin Sharma, who has already been empanelled meets the 30 years criteria and has been appointed on 06.01.2022 to hold charge to the post of DGP, Nagaland.

Considering the rival contentions, the Bench refused to grant relaxation of the requirement of 30 years of service to be eligible for being empanelled

“This being the position we are not inclined to issue direction mandating UPSC must relax eligibility criteria from 30 years to 25 years...The court cannot be unmindful of the fact that any mandate under judicial directions for relaxation of eligibility requirement of 30 years to 25 years would result in a situation where despite the officer of the requisite eligible being available, officers who are junior by as much as 5 years would become DGP. This would not be in the interest of the police service…Whether a relaxation should take place in the future of the requirement of 30 years is a matter for UPSC/MHA to determine. This is not a matter where a court should, by mandatory direction, command that a relaxation be granted ....”, the Bench recorded in the order.

The present matter emanates from the application filed by Nagaland Law Students' Federation) assailing the appointment and service extension of the incumbent DGP, Mr. T.J. Longkumer which is argued to be on the teeth of the mandate in Prakash Singh v. Union of India. On 23.03.2022, the Government of Nagaland had communicated a panel of three names for appointment to the post of DGP, Nagaland to the UPSC, as the incumbent DGP was to superannuate on 31.08.2022. By way of a communication dated 01.04.2022, the UPSC pointed out some deficiencies in the State Government's recommendation. The most crucial one being the inclusion of the name of Mr. Longkumer in the empanelment list. The UPSC clarified that since the vacancy arises because of the superannuation of Mr Longkumar, his name has to be deleted from the eligibility list. On 31.08.2022, Ministry of Home Affairs, Union Government granted extension of service and extension of inter-cadre deputation of tenure of Mr. Longkumer from Chhattisgarh cadre to Nagaland cadre for 6 months from the date of his superannuation on 31.08.2022. When the matter came before the Supreme Court, it directed the State of Nagaland to send a fresh list of empanelled officers for appointment to the post of Director General of Police (DGP) Nagaland to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). Accordingly, Mr. Rupin Sharma was empanelled.

[Case Title: Prakash Singh v. UoI WP(C) No. 310/1996]

 Click Here To Read/Download Order