State cannot flout SC directives: HC

Qolorat

Editor

posted on 12 years ago — updated on 1 second ago

48
views

Follow us:WhatsappFacebookTwitterTelegram.cls-1{fill:#4d4d4d;}.cls-2{fill:#fff;}Google NewsThe High Court on Thursday made the following observations and directions while striking down the appointment of V.Dinesh Reddy as as the director-general of police (head of police force):Observations* The IPS (Pay) Rules, 2007 and the IPS (Pay) amendment Rules, 2008, have made no provision for the process or methodology of selection of officers in the rank of DGP-HAG + scale to the post of DGP (HoPF); and the Central Government has prescribed no criteria for selection as enabled by Rule 3(2)(i) of the 2007 Rules. The directions issued by the Supreme Court in the Prakash Singh v. Union of India have, therefore, neither worked themselves out (as contended by the petitioners) nor are eclipsed, over-borne or rendered otiose.* The ratio of the judgment of the Madras High Court in R Nataraj v. State of Tamil Nadu and others and the relevant ratio of this court in the case of the Government of Andhra Pradesh v. SSP Yadav and others, have clearly declared the principle that the Supreme Court’s directive in the Prakash Singh case is operative notwithstanding the 2007 and 2008 Rules.* The Yadav judgment, insofaras the principles spelt out therein are concerned, continue to operate proprio vigore; the ratio in Yadav case that the Prakash Singh directive is in force and binds the state government is not eclipsed on account of stay of operation of this judgment granted by the Supreme Court on January 10, 2011.* Stay of operation of the Yadav case judgement would not, in any event, tantamount to suspension or eclipse of the Supreme Court judgment in the Prakash Singh case. The state has, therefore, no escape from unquestioned fidelity and ungrudging obedience to the mandate of the Prakash Singh directive.n The impugned judgment of the tribunal (that the order of the state government in selecting and appointing V Dinesh Reddy as DGP in the apex scale of Rs 80,000 (fixed), is illegal and unsustainable) is valid and suffers from no infirmity warranting interference in judicial review, under Article 226 of the Constitution.Directions* With regard to the operative directions issued by the tribunal in the order impugned herein, the state government shall forward the names of all eligible and serving police officers in the rank of DGP in the HAG+ scale together with their entire records of service to the UPSC, requesting preparation of a panel as directed by the Supreme Court in the Prakash Singh case within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.* Within two weeks from the date of receipt of proposals from the state government, the UPSC shall draw up a panel as directed in Pthe rakash Singh case and communicate the same to the Andhra Pradesh government.This direction is issued to the UPSC since the UPSC’s obligation to empanel officers for appointment to the post arises from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Prakash Singh case.* Within one week from the date of receipt of the panel forwarded by the UPSC, the state government shall select one of the three senior-most officers (empanelled by the UPSC) for appointment to the post of DGP (HoPF) in compliance with the directions given by the apex court in the Prakash Singh case.* Since the order of the tribunal setting aside the appointment of Dinesh Reddy as DGP (HoPF) is being upheld by this court herein, we direct that till the process of a fresh appointment to the post concerned is executed, Dinesh Reddy may discharge the functions of DGP (HoPF) but as purely in-charge/officiating arrangement. The officer shall not be entitled to draw salary. He can, draw the salary and emoluments attached to the post of DGP in the HAG+ scale.first published:August 17, 2012, 10:41 ISTlast updated:August 17, 2012, 10:41 IST
window._taboola = window._taboola || [];_taboola.push({mode: 'thumbnails-a', container: 'taboola-below-article-thumbnails', placement: 'Below Article Thumbnails', target_type: 'mix' });Latest News

The High Court on Thursday made the following observations and directions while striking down the appointment of V.Dinesh Reddy as as the director-general of police (head of police force):

Observations

* The IPS (Pay) Rules, 2007 and the IPS (Pay) amendment Rules, 2008, have made no provision for the process or methodology of selection of officers in the rank of DGP-HAG + scale to the post of DGP (HoPF); and the Central Government has prescribed no criteria for selection as enabled by Rule 3(2)(i) of the 2007 Rules. The directions issued by the Supreme Court in the Prakash Singh v. Union of India have, therefore, neither worked themselves out (as contended by the petitioners) nor are eclipsed, over-borne or rendered otiose.

* The ratio of the judgment of the Madras High Court in R Nataraj v. State of Tamil Nadu and others and the relevant ratio of this court in the case of the Government of Andhra Pradesh v. SSP Yadav and others, have clearly declared the principle that the Supreme Court’s directive in the Prakash Singh case is operative notwithstanding the 2007 and 2008 Rules.

* The Yadav judgment, insofaras the principles spelt out therein are concerned, continue to operate proprio vigore; the ratio in Yadav case that the Prakash Singh directive is in force and binds the state government is not eclipsed on account of stay of operation of this judgment granted by the Supreme Court on January 10, 2011.

* Stay of operation of the Yadav case judgement would not, in any event, tantamount to suspension or eclipse of the Supreme Court judgment in the Prakash Singh case. The state has, therefore, no escape from unquestioned fidelity and ungrudging obedience to the mandate of the Prakash Singh directive.

n The impugned judgment of the tribunal (that the order of the state government in selecting and appointing V Dinesh Reddy as DGP in the apex scale of Rs 80,000 (fixed), is illegal and unsustainable) is valid and suffers from no infirmity warranting interference in judicial review, under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Directions

* With regard to the operative directions issued by the tribunal in the order impugned herein, the state government shall forward the names of all eligible and serving police officers in the rank of DGP in the HAG+ scale together with their entire records of service to the UPSC, requesting preparation of a panel as directed by the Supreme Court in the Prakash Singh case within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

* Within two weeks from the date of receipt of proposals from the state government, the UPSC shall draw up a panel as directed in Pthe rakash Singh case and communicate the same to the Andhra Pradesh government.

This direction is issued to the UPSC since the UPSC’s obligation to empanel officers for appointment to the post arises from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Prakash Singh case.

* Within one week from the date of receipt of the panel forwarded by the UPSC, the state government shall select one of the three senior-most officers (empanelled by the UPSC) for appointment to the post of DGP (HoPF) in compliance with the directions given by the apex court in the Prakash Singh case.

* Since the order of the tribunal setting aside the appointment of Dinesh Reddy as DGP (HoPF) is being upheld by this court herein, we direct that till the process of a fresh appointment to the post concerned is executed, Dinesh Reddy may discharge the functions of DGP (HoPF) but as purely in-charge/officiating arrangement. The officer shall not be entitled to draw salary. He can, draw the salary and emoluments attached to the post of DGP in the HAG+ scale.