Madras High Court Dismisses Challenge Against Ad-hoc Appointment of Tamil Nadu Director General Police

Madras High Court Dismisses Challenge Against Ad-hoc Appointment of Tamil Nadu Director General Police

The High Court of Judicature at Madras, led by Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan, has effectively closed a legal challenge regarding the temporary appointment of the Director General of Police (DGP) in Tamil Nadu. The court ruled that the current arrangement is a stopgap measure, pending a regular appointment process already under the direct supervision of the Supreme Court of India.

The Contextual Backstory

The petition, filed by R. Varadaraj, challenged the state government’s decision to maintain an "in-charge" or ad-hoc arrangement for the state's top police office. The petitioner sought an immediate court-mandated timeframe for the selection and permanent appointment of a regular DGP. However, the litigation unfolded against the backdrop of a larger, ongoing legal battle regarding the state's failure to finalize the appointment amidst various administrative and legal hurdles.

Arguments and Judicial Observations

During the hearing, the state’s legal counsel presented the order issued by the Supreme Court on September 8, 2025, in Henri Tiphangne v. Thiru N. Muruganandam, IAS, Chief Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu . The Supreme Court noted that the delay in regular appointment was largely linked to legal proceedings involving a competing officer’s efforts to be included in the selection panel—proceedings which had already been dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal and subsequently by the Apex Court itself.

The High Court observed that because the state is actively complying with the Supreme Court’s specific directive to wait for the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) recommendations, the petitioner’s request to set aside the ad-hoc arrangement was fundamentally flawed.

Key Observations from the Bench

The High Court underscored the importance of procedural compliance, noting in its order:

• "The present arrangement is only till the regular appointment is made."
• "Since the appointment of the Director General of Police is required to be made in compliance of the order which has been passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 08.09.2025, no order is required to be passed in this petition."
• "Such a prayer made by the petitioner is completely baseless."

The Final Verdict

Finding no merit in the attempt to disrupt the existing administrative arrangement, the Madras High Court dismissed the petition in its entirety, with no order as to costs. The court's decision affirms that the appointment process for the DGP is already governed by the Apex Court’s clear timeline, rendering the petitioner's intervention unnecessary and legally untenable. This judgment reinforces the priority of ongoing Supreme Court mandates in matters of administrative service appointments within the state.