The main legal principle established is the requirement for states to adhere to the prescribed process for the appointment of the Director General of Police and ensure a reasonable tenure beyond the date of superannuation.

ORDER :

I.A. No. 25307 of 2018

1. Heard Mr. K. K. Venugopal, learned Attorney General for Union of India along with Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General, Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned counsel for the intervenor.

2. This is an application for modification of the judgment in Prakash Singh and Others v. Union of India and Others, (2006) 8 SCC 1. In the said judgment the Court has prescribed a minimum tenure for Director General of Police. Direction No. 2 given in the said judgment, which is relevant for the present purpose, reads thus:

"(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."

3. It is submitted by Mr. K. K. Venugopal, learned Attorney General, that out of 29 States, only 5 States, namely, the States of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan have approached the Union Public Service Commission for empanelment. The other States have not followed the direction. It is further urged by him that some of the States are adopting a method of appointing acting Director Generals of Police whereas such a concept is not perceptible from an analysis of the decision in Prakash Singh's case (supra). We have also been apprised by Mr. Venugopal that some Director Generals of Police are initially appointed on acting basis and thereafter, they are made permanent just before the date of their superannuation as a consequence of which they continue till the age of 62 years.

4. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the whole approach of the States is absolutely unacceptable. He further submits that this Court has directed that the Director General of Police will continue for at least two years irrespective of the date of superannuation.

5. Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned counsel for the intervenor would submit that the Union Public Service Commission should act as per the directions of this Court and it is the duty of the Union Public Service Commission and the States to see that the candidates who come within the zone of consideration have two years to go so that there will be a fair competition.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we pass the following directions:

(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 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