Full Judgment Text
1
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
I.A. NO.24616 OF 2019
IN
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.310 OF 1996
PRAKASH SINGH & ORS. …PETITIONER(S)/
APPLICANT(S)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. … RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
I.A.NO. 115064/2018, I.A.NO. 20735/2019,
I.A.NO.11484/2019
JUDGMENT
RANJAN GOGOI, CJI
I.A. NO.24616 OF 2019
1. On an earlier occasion, this Court had the occasion
to deal with another application for clarification of this Court’s
rd
order dated 3 July, 2018 [i.e. I.A. No.144172 of 2018] though
in a different context. While passing the order on the said I.A.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
DEEPAK GUGLANI
Date: 2019.03.13
15:30:48 IST
Reason:
on 16.1.2019, this Court referring to the principles underlying
the judgment of this Court in Prakash Singh & Ors. vs.
2
1
Union of India & Ors. had specifically noticed the relevant
directions issued under Article 142 of the Constitution of
India, which are in the following terms:
“Selection and minimum tenure of DGP.
(2) The Director General of Police of the
State shall be selected by the State
Government from amongst the three
seniormost officers of the Department who
have been empanelled for promotion to
that rank by the Union Public Service
Commission on the basis of their length of
service, very good record and range of
experience for heading the police force.
And, once he has been selected for the
job, he should have a minimum tenure of
at least two years irrespective of his date
of superannuation. The DGP may,
however, be relieved of his responsibilities
by the State Government acting in
consultation with the State Security
Commission consequent upon any action
taken against him under the All India
Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules or
following his conviction in a court of law
in a criminal offence or in a case of
corruption, or if he is otherwise
incapacitated from discharging his
duties.”
2. Thereafter this Court took note of the fact that
different States have enacted their respective Police Acts
and/or have carried out further amendments in their
1 (2006) 8 SCC 1
3
respective Police Acts. However, all such amendments did not
wholly follow the dictum laid down by this court in Prakash
(supra). This had led to filing of writ petition (i.e. Writ
Singh
Petition (Civil) No.286 of 2013 challenging the validity of the
provisions of Police Acts enacted by different States.
3. Primary ground of challenge in Writ Petition (Civil)
No.286 of 2013 is that the enactments are not in tune or
rather negate the directions of this Court in
Prakash Singh
(supra).
4. The present application (I.A. No.24616 of 2019) has
been filed by the applicants/petitioners for adequate
rd
clarification of the directions contained in the order dated 3
July, 2018, (passed in I.A. No.25307 of 2018 in Writ Petition
No.310 of 1996) which are extracted below. Specifically, the
directions in clauses (e) and (f) have been argued to be
necessary to be clarified by this Court.
“(a) All the States shall send their proposals
in anticipation of the vacancies to the Union
Public Service Commission, well in time at
least three months prior to the date of
4
retirement of the incumbent on the post of
Director General of Police;
(b) The Union Public Service Commission
shall prepare the panel as per the directions
of this Court in the judgment in Prakash
Singh’s case(supra) and intimate to the
States;
(c) The State shall immediately appoint one
of the persons from the panel prepared by
the Union Public Service Commission;
(d) None of the States shall ever conceive of
the idea of appointing any person on the
post of Director General of Police on acting
basis for there is no concept of acting
Director General of Police as per the
decision in Prakash Singh’s case(supra);
(e) An endeavour has to be made by all
concerned to see that the person who
was selected and appointed as the
Director General of Police continues
despite his date of superannuation.
However, the extended term beyond the
date of superannuation should be a
reasonable period. We say so as it has
been brought to our notice that some of
the States have adopted a practice to
appoint the Director General of Police on
the last date of retirement as a
consequence of which the person
continues for two years after his date of
superannuation. Such a practice will not
be in conformity with the spirit of the
direction.
(f) Our direction No.(c) should be
considered by the Union Public Service
5
Commission to mean that the persons
are to be empanelled, as far as
practicable, from amongst the people
within the zone of consideration who
have got clear two years of service. Merit
and seniority should be given due
weightage.
(g) Any legislation/rule framed by any of the
States or the Central Government running
counter to the direction shall remain in
abeyance to the aforesaid extent.”
[ emphasis supplied )
5. The grievance raised by the applicants/petitions is
twofold.
To do away with the practice of States appointing the
Director General of Police on the last date of the normal
tenure of an incumbent “so as to ensure that such
incumbents get extended term of two years in view of the
directions of this Court contained in Prakash Singh (supra)”
rd
clarifications were issued by this court by order dated 3 July,
2018 in paragraph (e) and (f), quoted above. The said
directions do not seem to have ended the controversy
inasmuch as it is now the grievance of the
applicants/petitioners that the Union Public Service
Commission while empanelling officers for consideration for
6
appointment to the post of Director General of Police is
considering the minimum residual tenure required to be taken
into account as two years. In the process, according to the
applicant, many suitable and eligible officers are being left
out.
6. Having read and considered the decision of this
court in Prakash Singh (supra) we are of the view that what
was emphasized in (supra) is a minimum
Prakash Singh
tenure of two years for an incumbent once he is appointed as
the Director General of Police. The direction issued by this
Court neither contemplated the appointment of a Director
General of Police on the eve of his retirement nor the practice
now adopted by the Union Public Service Commission in
making the empanelment, i.e. empanelling officers who have
at least two years of tenure.
7. Neither of the aforesaid practice, in our considered
view, can further the directions of this Court in Prakash
(supra) or give impetus to what this Court had in mind
Singh
in issuing the directions in Prakash Singh (supra), namely,
that the appointment of a Director General of Police in a State
7
should be purely on the basis of merit and to insulate the said
office from all kinds of influences and pressures, once
appointed the incumbent should get a minimum tenure of two
years of service irrespective of his date of superannuation.
8. Neither this Court had contemplated
recommendation for appointment of officers who are on the
verge of retirement or appointment of officers who have a
minimum residual tenure of two years. The emphasis was to
select the best and to ensure a minimum tenure of two years’
service of such officer who is to be selected and appointed.
The Police Acts enacted also do not contemplate any fixed
residual tenure for an officer to be recommended for
appointment as the Director General of Police of a State. In
the above conspectus the object in issuing the directions in
Prakash Singh (supra), in our considered view, can best be
achieved if the residual tenure of an officer i.e. remaining
period of service till normal retirement, is fixed on a
reasonable basis, which, in our considered view, should be a
period of six months.
8
9. This will take care of any possible action on the part
of the State Government which can be viewed by any quarter
as an act of favouritism. Recommendations for appointment
of the Director General of Police on the eve of retirement of the
incumbent or of the Union Public Service Commission in
embarking upon a course of action which may have the effect
of overlooking efficient and eligible officers will stand obviated
by the above direction which we had deemed to be fit and
proper to issue.
10. We, therefore, clarify the order of this Court dated
rd
3 July, 2018 passed in I.A. No.25307 of 2018 in Writ Petition
No.310 of 1996 to mean that recommendation for
appointment to the post of Director General of Police by the
Union Public Service Commission and preparation of panel
should be purely on the basis of merit from officers who have
a minimum residual tenure of six months i.e. officers who
have at least six months of service prior to the retirement.
11. The above direction, naturally, will hold the field
until the validity of the Police Acts in force which provides to
9
the contrary are examined and dealt with by this Court in Writ
Petition (Civil) No.286 of 2013.
12. All the Interlocutory Applications are disposed of in
terms of the above.
……………………….,
CJI
[RANJAN GOGOI]
………………………….,J
[L. NAGESWARA RAO]
………………………….,J
[SANJIV KHANNA]
NEW DELHI
MARCH 13, 2019