Gauhati High Court Dismisses IPS Officer's Plea For Deputation With Enforcement Directorate

The Gauhati High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by a 2005 batch IPS Officer of Assam-Meghalaya cadre against a Selection Committee's decision to not recommend his name for central deputation as an Additional Director in the Enforcement Directorate.

Dr. GV Siva Prasad, who is currently the Additional Director General with Competition Commission of India at Kidwai Nagar (East), had alleged that the Selection Committee did not take into account a 2009 policy decision of the Government of India notified wherein certain special provisions have been made for Officers from the North-Eastern Region to encourage them to go on Central deputation

The single judge bench of Justice Suman Shyam observed that there was no element of discrimination or arbitrariness in the decision making process of Selection Committee leading to the recommendation and appointment of the other candidates as Additional Director with the ED on deputation basis.

“It may be noted that the policy decision of the Government is only to encourage Officers serving in the North Eastern Cadre to go for Central deputation but the same does not create any quota for the North Eastern Officers. In other words, such policy cannot preclude the Selection Committee from assessing the merit of the applicants on transparent criteria,” said the court.

Prasad had applied for the post of Additional Director of Enforcement in pursuance to an Office Memorandum issued by Government of India, Ministry of Finance inviting applications for filling up five posts of Additional Director of Enforcement at Chandigarh and Kolkata on deputation basis. A 5 member Selection Committee headed by the Central Vigilance Commissioner (CVC), as its Chairperson, was constituted in accordance to the Section 25 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003.

The Committee considered the 17 applications and upon such consideration the names of four applicants were recommended vide Minutes of the Meeting of CVC held on October 19, 2020. Subsequently, a notification dated November 2, 2020 was issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India notifying the appointment of the four selected candidates as Additional Director of Enforcement on deputation.

The counsel representing the petitioner submitted that since there is a policy decision of the Government of India, the same ought to have been adhered to scrupulously by the Section Committee which was not done in this case. It was argued that the respondents cannot take a stand which is contrary to the policy decision of the Government.

While placing reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Lloyed Electric and Engineering Limited v. State of Himachal Pradesh, it was further argued that the petitioner’s case calls for fresh consideration by the Selection Committee.

The counsel appearing for the Enforcement Directorate (ED) submitted that the Circular dated February 18, 2009 was duly considered by the Committee while conducting the selection process. It was further argued that the decision taken by the Committee in exercise of discretion conferred under Section 25(f) of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 is not liable to be interfered with in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The court observed that the exercise adopted by the Selection Committee seemed to be fair and transparent and in consonance with the mandate of Section 25 of the Act of 2003. It further said that there is no reason for it to presume that the Selection Committee, which is a Central Government Agency, was unaware of the policy decision of the Government of India as notified by the Circular dated February 18, 2009.

“Therefore, I find force in the submission of Mr. R. K. D. Choudhury that the Directorate of Enforcement, being a premier agency, the question of appointment of Additional Directors therein would ultimately depend on merit and overall suitability of the Officers which the Selection Committee would be the best judge to assess. Therefore, it is not for the petitioner to point out the parameters on which such selections are to be held. After careful scrutiny of the materials available on record, I do not find any element of discrimination or arbitrariness in the decision making process leading to the recommendation and appointment of the four candidates as Additional Director of Enforcement on deputation basis,” the court said.

Case Title: Dr. GV Siva Prasad, IPS v. The Union of India & 3 Ors.

Click Here to Read/Download Judgment