Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has expressed displeasure over the improper manner of functioning of the Maharashtra government while sending a letter to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) in November last year, asking it to reconsider acting state Director General of Police (DGP) Sanjay Pandey’s name for empanelment for Maharashtra Director General of Police.
On November 1, 2021, the then chief secretary, Sitaram Kunte, as part of the selection committee, signed off on three names - IPS officers Hemant Nagrale, Rajnish Seth and K Venkatesham - recommended by the committee for the post of Maharashtra DGP. The post fell vacant following the transfer of Subodh Jaiswal to the CBI. However, on November 8, Kunte sent another letter to the UPSC, saying that the selection committee had erred and asked it to reconsider Pandey’s name.
On Monday, a bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice M S Karnik questioned how Kunte could do such a thing.
The CJ said: “It was not proper on part of the chief secretary to write to UPSC a week later saying its selection committee had erred. The law is clear that the Maharashtra government could not have asked for such reconsideration. Once you have signed the proceedings, you cannot claim that the decision was erroneous and it be reconsidered…”
“Mr Sitaram Kunte signed it. So, it wasn’t open to him to say at a subsequent stage that the committee must renege its recommendations or that it had erred. He should have said so before signing,” added the CJ.
The HC was hearing a public interest litigation filed by advocate Datta Mane seeking directions to the government to appoint a DGP for the state as per the recommendation made by the empanelment committee of the UPSC on November 1 last year.
Abhinav Chandrachud, Mane’s counsel, argued that by asking the UPSC to reconsider the recommendations and in delaying the process of appointment of a permanent DGP, the government was acting in breach of the Supreme Court judgment passed in the case of Prakash Singh Badal.
According to the SC judgment, the state DGP’s post must be a permanent one and that there cannot be an acting DGP. Besides, the SC also held that the DGP should have a fixed term, a minimum tenure of at least two years.
Chandrachud pointed out that Pandey was the acting DGP.
Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh, appearing for the Union government, had said that once the three names had been recommended, there was no question of the UPSC reconsidering the same.
Advocate General Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, appearing for the state government, argued that Kunte had asked the UPSC to reconsider the names after realising that an error had been committed by the committee and that it hadn’t correctly assessed Pandey’s grade, appraisal reports and so on.
To this, the CJ remarked that the government’s letter seemed like an afterthought. The judges also said that the law was clear that a selection committee member could not make a plea for recommendation.
The HC has kept the PIL for further hearing on January 25.
