1. These two writ petitions are preferred challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, declaring the empanelment and selection of third respondent as void, invalid, arbitrary and illegal as a result of non-application of mind and due to deliberate suppression of materials facts and consequently quashing both the empanelment of the third respondent as a candidate eligible for consideration and Annexure-A1-notification appointing him as DG & IGP.

2. The petition in W.P.8788/12 is preferred by the State Government and W.P.9655/12 is preferred by the third respondent challenging the said order. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the original application.

FACTURAL MATRIX

3. The applicant is an IPS officer joined the Indian Police Service, in the year 1977. He has a careers planning 34 years and he is now working as DGP Commandant General Home Guards, Director of Civil Defence and Director of General Fire and Emergency Services, Bangalore.

4. Sri. N. Achuta Rao, who was appointed as Director General and Inspector General of Police on 05.07.2011, retired on 30.11.2011, on reaching the age of Superannuation. The applicant is the senior most Police Officer.

5. The State Government vide letter dated 02.11.2011, forwarded a proposal to the Union Public Service Commission (for short hereinafter referred to as UPSC) to convene a meeting of the Empanelment Committee for recommending a panel to enable them to select new incumbent in place of the present DG and IGP of the State, who was due for retirement on 30.11.2011, in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Prakash Singh Vs. Union of India and Others’ reported in 2006 (8) SCC 1. The State Government sent five names in the order of seniority.

6. The UPSC in compliance with the directions of the Supreme Court in Prakash Singh’s case convened a Empanelment Committee Meeting to prepare a panel for appointing of DG and IGP of Karnataka Cadre which was held on 30.11.2011. The Empanelment Committee considered the candidature of 5 eligible officers forwarded by the State Government. The Committee took into account the experience of the officers in the core areas of policing such as law and order, maintenance, crime investigation, administration etc., along with experience in the fields of vigilance/intelligence/training etc. On the basis of the above assessment, the Committee prepared a panel consisting of the names of three officers as suitable for appointment to the post of DG and IGP of Karnataka. Thereafter, they communicated the said names to the Government.

7. The Chief Minister, after considering the aforesaid names, appointed the third respondent as DG and IGP of police (Head of Police Force), Karnataka, Bangalore in the Apex Scale of Rs.80,000/- with immediate effect and until further orders vice Sri. N. Achutha Rao, IPS retiring from service on 30.11.2011. It is this order of appointment and Empanelment made by the UPSC which was challenged by the applicant by filing an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore.

8. In the application filed, the applicant had set out in detail the facts which would disentitle the third respondent from being empanelled and considered for the aforesaid post. It was also contended that the said appointment is contrary to the judgment of the Apex Court in Prakash Singh’s case. It is graphically set out in the petition the haste with which the UPSC finalized the names for empanelment and also the haste with which the Chief Minister appointed the third respondent to the said post. The main ground urged is the finding of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) regarding human rights violations of villagers by the Special Task Force (STF), Karnataka commanded by the third respondent, which included (i) illegal informal detention of male and female villagers, (ii) brutal and dehumanizing torture of male and female v