Back
2016 Supreme(All) 27
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
(Lucknow Bench)
BEFORE : SHRI NARAYAN SHUKLA AND ASHOK PAL SINGH, JJ.
Dr. NUTAN THAKUR ....Petitioner
Versus
S. JAVEED AHMAD AND OTHERS .....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition (S/B) No. 47 of 2016, decided on 11st January, 2016)
Counsel :
Asok Pande for the Petitioner; C.S.C., A.S.G. and Kaushik Chatterji for the Respondents.
Headnote:Appointment – Director General of Police – Petitioner has not denied that respondent No. 1 was enlisted in seniority list of I.P.S. Officers – And, not disputed qualification of respondent No. 1, rather she herself has stated that respondent No. 1 carries good track record, it is also a reality that seniority in service should also be considered over which Supreme Court has given special emphasis of watchdog in which three senior-most I.P.S. Officers are to be taken under zone of consideration – Since, apart from criteria of seniority, other conditions have also been laid down by Supreme Court – Therefore, it was within domain of Selection Committee which has recommended his name for appointment on post of D.G.P. – Unsuitability may not be criteria for issuing a writ of quo warranto as it can be seen in a writ of certiorari filed by person aggrieved – Petitioner has not claimed that she is aggrieved person – Therefore, plea, which has been taken for issuance of writ of quo warranto i.e. of procedural irregularity in appointment, if considered, would be beyond scope of writ of quo warranto. [Paras 16, 17 and 18]
Result; Petition Dismissed.
By the Court.—Heard Mr. Ashok Pande, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Vijay Bahadur Singh, learned Advocate General for the State, Smt. Bulbul Godiyal, learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. Mohd. Mansoor Ahmad, learned Chief Standing Counsel, Mr. Vivek Kumar Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, Mr. Ajay Kumar Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 2, Mr. S.P. Rai, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 and Mr. Kaushik Chatterji, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4.
2. The petitioner has sought the following reliefs :
“a. kindly issue a Writ in the nature of Quo warranto thereby asking respondent No. Sri S Javeed Ahmad, Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, as under what authority of law he is occupying the post of DGP of U.P., in spite of being disqualified for being considered and appointed on this post as per the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 142 in the matter of Writ Petition (civil) 310 of 1996 Prakash Singh and others v. Union of India and others, 2006 (8) SCC 1 and to quash the appointment after summoning the same.
b. kindly issue any order to the benefit of the petitioner for equal and non-discriminatory application of law as this Hoh’ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice.”
On the following grounds:
“(1) Because as stated in great details in the petition, Sri S Javeed Ahmad is an usurper and illegal occupant to the post of DGP, UP.
(2) Because hence the Writ of Quo warranto lies here against Sri S Javeed Ahmad.
(3) Because as stated above, the petitioner is not a total stranger to the cause and has more than one direct and indirect relation with who occupies the post of DGP, UP and in what manner.
(4) Because hence the petitioner can file a writ of Quo warranto against the illegal occupant to the post of DGP, UP.”
3. The facts as exposited by the petitioner are that the respondent No. 1, who has been appointed as Director General of Police, had been placed at serial No. 14 of the seniority list of Indian Police Service Officers in the State of Uttar Pradesh. He was promoted to the rank of Director General on 30.6.2015. There are thirteen Indian Police Service Officers over and above to the respondent No. 1 for consideration of appointment to the post of Director General of Police. The respondent No. 1 does not satisfy the minimum criteria prescribed for appointment on the post of Director General of Police. The Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Singh and others v. Union of India and others, 2006 (8) SCC 1, has issued directions to the Central Government, State Governments and Union Territories for compliance of the directions till framing of the appropriate legislation; State Security Commission. The Supreme Court directed the State Governments to constitute a State Security Commission in every State to ensure that the State Government does not exercise unwarranted influence or pressure on the State Police and for laying down the broad policy guidelines so that the State Police always acts according to the laws of the land and the Constitution of the country. The Supreme Court further observed that the recommendation of this Commission shall be binding on the State Government.
4. Secondly, the Supreme Court further issued direction that the Director General of Police 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 the Union Public Service Commission on the basis of their length of service, very good record and range of experience for heading the police force. And, once he has been selected for the job, he should have a minimum tenure of at least two years irrespective of his date of superannuation. The Director General of Police may, however, be relieved of his responsibilities by the State Government acting in consultation with the State Security Commission consequent upo
