Point of Law: Petitioner/Intervener with regard to violation of Rule 16(1) of Rules, 1958 and FR 56(d) and given a detailed finding that there is no violation of the said Rules, in view of the power of relaxation exercised by the Central Government. Therefore, even when examined on the anvil and touchstone of the parameters for issuing a writ of quo warranto.

JUDGMENT :

D. N. PATEL, J.

1. Present public interest litigation has been preferred seeking the following reliefs:-

“a. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the impugned order, dated 27.07.2021, issued by the Respondent No.1 appointing Respondent No. 2 as the Commissioner of Police, Delhi;

b. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to Respondent No.1 to produce the order/communication of Appointments Committee of Cabinet vide No. 6/30/2021-EO (SM-I) dated 27.07.2021 issued by it approving the inter-cadre deputation of Respondent No. 2 from Gujarat cadre to AGMUT cadre and further to extend his service period to 3 l.07.2021, i.e. one year beyond his date of superannuation, and to set-aside the said order.

c. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondent No. I to initiate fresh steps for appointing Commissioner of Police, Delhi, strictly in accordance with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Prakash Singh case viz., (2006) 8 SCC 1, (2019) 4 SCC 13 and (2019) 4 SCC an officer of high integrity belonging the AGMUT cadre.

d. Pass such other order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.”

2. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner at length. Petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 27.07.2021, whereby Inter-Cadre deputation has been granted to Respondent No.2 - Mr.Rakesh Asthana, from Gujarat Cadre to AGMUT Cadre as also extension of his service, initially for a period of one year beyond the date of his superannuation on 31.07.2021 or until further orders, whichever is earlier and his appointment as Commissioner of Police, Delhi. Challenge is also laid to the order dated 27.07.2021 whereby approval was granted by Appointments Committee of Cabinet for Inter-Cadre deputation of Respondent No. 2 as well as extension of his service beyond the age of superannuation.

3. Respondent No. 2 is a 1984 Batch officer of the Indian Police Services (‘IPS’), Gujarat Cadre and his date of superannuation was 31.07.2021. Vide the impugned order dated 27.07.2021, Respondent No. 1 has granted Inter-Cadre deputation to Respondent No. 2 and extended his services beyond the date of superannuation. Vide the same order, Respondent No. 2 has been appointed as Commissioner of Police, Delhi. Assailing the said order, it was contended by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner that the impugned order (Annexure P-2 to the memo of this petition) has been passed in total violation of provisions of Rule 56(d) of the Fundamental Rules and Supplementary Rules (hereinafter referred to as ‘FR-56(d)’); All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules, 1958’); All India Services (Conditions of Service -Residuary Matters) Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules, 1960’), as well as in violation of Office Memorandum dated 08.11.2004, issued by Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India, (hereinafter referred to as ‘DoPT’).

4. It was further contended by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the appointment of Respondent No.2, is also in violation of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prakash Singh’s Case (I), (2006) 8 SCC 1, wherein it was directed that DGP of the State shall be selected by the State Government from amongst the three senior most officers of the Department who have been empanelled for promotion to that rank by Union Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘UPSC’), on the basis of their length of service, very good record and range of experience for heading the Police Force. Once selected for the job, the DGP should have a minimum tenure of at least two years, irrespective of his date of superannua