The amended pay rules of Indian Police Service Rules 2008, specifying the eligibility criteria for the post of Director General of Police, take precedence over the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prakash Singh's case.

1. The petitioner herein has assailed the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore, in Original Application No.35/2011 dt.21st April 2011, which application was filed by the 4th Respondent Dr.D.V.Guru Prasad. The petitioner is an IPS Officer of 1978 batch. He joined the Police service on 16.7.1978. He has put in service of 32 years 6 months. He has worked in different places and he has been awarded with several medals in appreciation of the service rendered by him. 4th Respondent – Dr.D.V.Guru Prasad is also a senior IPS Officer of 1976 batch.

2. The controversy that has arisen in this case is in regard to the filling up the post of Head of the Police Force of Karnataka (H.O.P.F.). The cause of action has arisen on account of Dr.Ajaikumar Singh, the former DGP who has retired or attaining the age of superannuation on 31.1.2011. The petitioner herein who has put in 30 years of service addressed a letter to the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka on 21.12.2010 stating that after retirement of Dr.Ajaikumar Singh, who are all the eligible Police officers for inclusion in the list to be sent to the Union Public Service Commission for preparation of a panel of 3 Police Officers fit to be appointed as DGP and HOPF based on the guidelines issued by the Hon. Supreme Court in Prakash Singh case and in the light of the guide lines issued by the UPSC. Again he addressed one more letter on 12.1.2011 to consider him as one of the officers who fails within the zone of consideration in view of his merit. Thereafter he addressed one more letter on 15.1.2011 to consider his earlier request and representation in accordance with law. In the meanwhile, the Union Public Service Commission on 20.1.2011 addressed a letter to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Karnataka to send the list of officers of the rank of ADGP and above who have completed 30 years of service as the per the guidelines dt.15.1.1999. The letter dt.20.1.11 was questioned by the 4th Respondent – D.V.Guru Prasad by approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal on the ground the opinion of the UPSC to send the names of all the officers who have put in 30 years of service to prepare the panel of 3 eligible candidates for selection of DGP and HOPF is bad in law and further requested to direct the UPSC to follow IPS Pay Rules strictly and fill up the post of DGP (HOPF) by sending the Panel of names as per the Guide lines issued by Supreme Court in Prakash Singh’s case and in the light of the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court dt.22.11.2010 and the High Court of Judicature, Madras dt.8.10.2010 before 31.1.2011 to enable the Respondent-3 – state to fill up the post of Director General of Police/H.O.P.F.

3. In the application filed by the 4th Respondent, petitioner was not a party. The Tribunal after hearing the 4th Respondent and the Respondents before it by its order dt.21.4.2011 allowed the application of the 4th Respondent and directed the State of Karnataka to forward the names of all eligible officers in the rank of Director General of Police in the cadre of HAG + scale of Rs.75,000/- (Increment at 3%) – Rs.80,000/- as on date with all service records to the UPSC with necessary requisition for preparing a panel as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prakash Singh’s case. The Tribunal also directed the UPSC to prepare a panel as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and forward the same to the State of Karnataka immediately so as to reach the State of Karnataka before 25.5.2011 positively and with a further direction to the State of Karnataka to make the selection from amongst the officers in the panel forwarded by the 1st Respondent-U.P.S.C. and make appointment to the post of DG and IGP (HOPF) on or before 1.6.2011. This order has been challenged in this petition.

4. The main grievance of the petitioner before us is that the order of CAT in directing the State Government to forward the names of the officers who