Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 4475
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH
R. Nataraj
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu rep.by its Chief Secretary to Government & Others
Writ Petition No.6917 of 2010 and M.P.No.2 of 2010
Decided On : 08-10-2010
For the Petitioner:A.L. Somayaji, Senior counsel for N.S. Nandakumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 & R2, P.S. Raman, Advocate General assisted by Mr.G.Sankaran and Mrs.Pusupa Menon, Spl.G.P, R3, J. Ravindran, R4, K.Sridhar, R7, Mrs. T. Girija, R8, S. Ragunathan, Advocates, R9, Tribunal.
Headnote:
The Court held that the appointment of the 8th respondent as Director General of Police (DGP) was invalid as it violated the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Prakash Singh's case. The Court directed the State Government to forward the names of all eligible officers in the rank of DGP to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) for preparing a panel as directed by the Supreme Court. The UPSC was directed to prepare the panel and forward it to the State Government within a specified timeframe. The State Government was then directed to make the selection from the panel and make the appointment within a specified timeframe. Till such time, the 8th respondent was allowed to discharge the functions of the DGP (Law and Order).
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a senior police officer, challenged the appointment of the 8th respondent as the Director General of Police (DGP) of the State, alleging that it was in violation of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Prakash Singh's case. The petitioner contended that the State Government had failed to follow the procedure prescribed by the Supreme Court for the selection and appointment of the DGP, and that the 8th respondent was not even in the zone of consideration for the post.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the appointment of the 8th respondent as DGP was indeed in violation of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Prakash Singh's case. The Court noted that the State Government had failed to follow the procedure prescribed by the Supreme Court for the selection and appointment of the DGP, and that the 8th respondent was not even in the zone of consideration for the post.
Issues: 1. Whether the appointment of the 8th respondent as DGP was in violation of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Prakash Singh's case? 2. Whether the State Government had followed the procedure prescribed by the Supreme Court for the selection and appointment of the DGP?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the appointment of the 8th respondent as DGP was invalid as it violated the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Prakash Singh's case. The Court directed the State Government to forward the names of all eligible officers in the rank of DGP to the UPSC for preparing a panel as directed by the Supreme Court. The UPSC was directed to prepare the panel and forward it to the State Government within a specified timeframe. The State Government was then directed to make the selection from the panel and make the appointment within a specified timeframe. Till such time, the 8th respondent was allowed to discharge the functions of the DGP (Law and Order).
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition and directed the State Government to follow the procedure prescribed by the Supreme Court for the selection and appointment of the DGP.
F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.
The petitioner seeks for the issuance of a Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 9th respondent in O.A.No.245 of 2010 dated 8.3.2010 as well as the order of the 2nd respondent relating to Police Note No.SC/3/2010 dated 8.1.2010, to quash the same and direct the first respondent to follow the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Prakash Singh vs. Union of India reported in (2006) 8 SCC 1 and Note 2 of G.O.Ms.No.1403 dated 16.10.2008 and G.O. (D) No.99 dated 30.1.2009 and select the Director General of Police of the State, Head of the Police Force, from amongst the panel of three senior most Director Generals of Police eligible as on 8.1.2010 and consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the said post.
2. When the Writ Petition was moved on 7.4.2010, the writ petitioner prayed for an interim order in M.P.No.2 of 2010 to stay the order passed by the 9th respondent dated 8.3.2010 in O.A.No.245 of 2010 and the order of the 2nd respondent in Police Note No.SC/3/2010 dated 8.1.2010 pending disposal of the Writ Petition. The said prayer was not however granted by this Court and an order came to be passed on 7.4.2010 holding as under:
"3. We have considered the above submissions. On a perusal of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Prakash Singh's case, referred supra, we are of the considered view that the directions for filling up the post of Director General of Police of a State should be made only as per the empanelment of the candidates and from among the first three of such police officers in the panel. That procedure seems to have not been followed in the instant case. We are also informed that the present incumbent, K.P.Jain, IPS as Director General of Police is attaining the age of superannuation at the end of this month. Since Letika Saran, IPS has been appointed and as on today, she is functioning as Director General of Police, we are not inclined to grant interim order. However, we make it clear that her continuance shall abide by further orders in this petition."
3. While the learned Assistant Solicitor General Mr.J.Ravindran took notice on behalf of the 3rd respondent, notice was directed to be served through Court as well as privately on the respondents 4 to 8. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, the learned Special Government Pleader took notice. The 9th respondent being the Central Administrative Tribunal, a formal party, it is not represented by anyone. As far as the 4th respondent UPSC is concerned, subsequently Mr.K.Sridhar, learned Standing Counsel entered appearance. The 8th respondent is now represented by M/s.S.Ragunathan and Shymala. The 7th respondent is represented by his advocate Mrs.T.Girija. Though the 6th respondent was duly served, there is no representation on his behalf either in person or through counsel. It is represented that the 6th respondent has subsequently retired and is no longer in service.
4. Heard Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the learned Advocate General Mr.P.S.Raman for the 1st and 2nd respondents and other learned counsel for the other respondents.
5. The sheet anchor of the petitioner's case is the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prakash Singh's case reported in (2006) 8 SCC 1, wherein among other posts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the post of Director General of Police as the Head of the State Police and the manner in which the said post should be filled up in every State.
6. Before dealing with the core issue, the brief facts which are required to be stated are that the petitioner, who was directly recruited to the Indian Police Service on 16.7.1975, was said to have been promoted as Inspector General of Police on 18.3.1996 and was subsequently promoted as Additional Director General of Police on 9.9.2001. He was promoted as Director General of Police on 10.9.2008.
7. The 8th respondent was said to have been recruited to the Indian Police Service on 14.11
