1. Appointment of Director General of Police — UPSC recommendations — State proposals and panel formulation. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 1853
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI.,, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.
Centre For Public Interest Litigation – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Anr. – Respondents
Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 881 of 2021
Decided On : 16-12-2022
Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Advocate, Ms. Neha Rathi, Advocate, Mr. Kamal Kishore, Advocate, Ms. Kavita Wadia, Advocate, Mr. Vikas Mehta, Advocate, Mr. Adith Nair, Advocate, Mr. Rajat Sehgal, Advocate, Aarant Sarangi, Advocate, Ms. Shruti, Advocate, Mr. Jay Savla, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Amrita Kumari, Advocate, Mr. Ravi Mishra, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG, Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, ASG, Mr. Wasim Qadri, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Rajat Nair, Advocate, Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Advocate, Mr. Amit Sharma (B), Advocate, Mr. Ashok Panigrahi, Advocate, Ms. Mrinal Elkar Mazumdar, Advocate, Ms. Sunita Sharma, Advocate, Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate, Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Amrish Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate, Mr. Vardhman Kaushik, Advocate, Mr. Manoj Joshi, Advocate, Mr. B. Purushothama Reddy, Advocate, Mr Dhruv Joshi, Advocate, Mr. Anand Singh, Advocate, Mr. Shubham Dwivedi, Advocate, Ms. Shikha John, Advocate, Ms. Lalita Kaushik, Advocate, Ms. Akshata Singh, Advocate, Ms. Shikha Kaushik, Advocate, Mr. Vardhman Kaushik, Advocate, Ms. Diksha Rai, Advocate, Mr. Arunabh Chowdhury, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Pragya Baghel, Advocate, Ms. Pallavi Langar, Advocate, Ms. Anirudh M Sethi, Advocate, Ms. Pallavi Langar, Advocate, Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, Advocate, Mr. Shivam Singh, Advocate, Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate, Mr. C.U. Singh, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Anup Kumar, Advocate, Ms. Neha Jaiswal, Advocate, Mr. Shivam Kumar, Advocate, Ms. Shruti Singh, Advocate, for the Respondent.
Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Advocate, Ms. Neha Rathi, Advocate, Mr. Kamal Kishore, Advocate, Ms. Kavita Wadia, Advocate, Mr. Vikas Mehta, Advocate, Mr. Adith Nair, Advocate, Mr. Rajat Sehgal, Advocate, Aarant Sarangi, Advocate, Ms. Shruti, Advocate, Mr. Jay Savla, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Amrita Kumari, Advocate, Mr. Ravi Mishra, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG, Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, ASG, Mr. Wasim Qadri, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Rajat Nair, Advocate, Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Advocate, Mr. Amit Sharma (B), Advocate, Mr. Ashok Panigrahi, Advocate, Ms. Mrinal Elkar Mazumdar, Advocate, Ms. Sunita Sharma, Advocate, Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate, Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Amrish Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate, Mr. Vardhman Kaushik, Advocate, Mr. Manoj Joshi, Advocate, Mr. B. Purushothama Reddy, Advocate, Mr Dhruv Joshi, Advocate, Mr. Anand Singh, Advocate, Mr. Shubham Dwivedi, Advocate, Ms. Shikha John, Advocate, Ms. Lalita Kaushik, Advocate, Ms. Akshata Singh, Advocate, Ms. Shikha Kaushik, Advocate, Mr. Vardhman Kaushik, Advocate, Ms. Diksha Rai, Advocate, Mr. Arunabh Chowdhury, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Pragya Baghel, Advocate, Ms. Pallavi Langar, Advocate, Ms. Anirudh M Sethi, Advocate, Ms. Pallavi Langar, Advocate, Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, Advocate, Mr. Shivam Singh, Advocate, Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate, Mr. C.U. Singh, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Anup Kumar, Advocate, Ms. Neha Jaiswal, Advocate, Mr. Shivam Kumar, Advocate, Ms. Shruti Singh, Advocate, for the Respondent.
Timely addressing of requisitions and taking consequential actions is crucial in the process of appointing officers for key positions.
Headnote:
UPSC - DGP Appointment - The court directed the State of Jharkhand to address the defects in the proposal for recommending officers for the post of DGP and submit a reply by a specified date. The court also directed UPSC to take consequential action by a certain date. In the case of the State of Bihar, the court directed UPSC to communicate the panel for appointment of the DGP by a specified date, and the State of Bihar to take consequential steps by a certain date. The petition was disposed of in view of these directions.
Fact of the Case:
The UPSC issued communications to the State of Jharkhand and the State of Bihar regarding the appointment of officers for the post of DGP, specifying deadlines for responses and consequential actions.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the States to address the requisitions and take consequential steps within specified timelines, and disposed of the petition accordingly.
Issues: Appointment of officers for the post of DGP, addressing of requisitions by the States, and consequential actions by UPSC and the States.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of addressing requisitions and taking consequential actions within specified timelines in the process of appointing officers for the post of DGP.
Final Decision: The court directed the States to address the requisitions and take consequential steps within specified timelines, and disposed of the petition accordingly.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Submission regarding defects in proposal for recommending officers and preparation of appointment panel for Director General of Police. (Para 1 )
3. Necessity of timely communication of appointment panels to ensure continuity of office before the expiry of the incumbent's term. (Para 2 )
4. Administrative authorities must resolve procedural defects and finalize appointments within stipulated timelines to prevent vacancies in key offices. (Para 2 )
5. Directions issued for rectification of proposal defects and communication of appointment panels — Petition disposed of. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
6. What is the procedure for addressing defects in proposals for recommending officers for the post of Director General of Police?
The state must attend to the requisitions furnished by the UPSC and submit a reply within the court-mandated timeframe to allow for consequential action. (Para 2 )
7. How is the appointment of a Director General of Police handled when the incumbent's term is expiring?
The UPSC must communicate the formulated panel and the state must take consequential steps to ensure the appointment is finalized before the term expires. (Para 2 , 3 )
ORDER
I.A. NO. 45646/2022 IN. CONMT.PET.(C) 403/2021
1. Mr Naresh Kaushik, counsel appearing on behalf of the UPSC, states that on 30 November 2022, UPSC has issued a communication to the State of Jharkhand adverting to certain defects which were found in the proposal for recommending officers for the post of DGP.
2. We direct the State of Jharkhand to attend to the requisitions which have been furnished by UPSC and to positively submit its reply on or before 23 December 2022.
3. UPSC shall thereafter take consequential action no later than 9 January 2023.
4. List the IA on 16 January 2023.
W.P.(C) No. 1375/2021
1. Mr Naresh Kaushik, counsel appearing on behalf of UPSC, states that UPSC has prepared a panel for appointment of the DGP in the State of Bihar.
2. The panel which has been formulated by UPSC shall be communicated no later than by 19 December 2022, having due regard to the fact that the term of the incumbent is to expire on 19 December 2022.
3. The State of Bihar shall take consequential steps on or before 2 January 2023.
4. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of.
5. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
