The Bombay High Court remarked that it was not proper of Maharashtra’s then Chief Secretary to write to the Union Public Service Commission’s (UPSC) empanelment committee stating it had erred in its recommendation of candidates for the post of Director General Police. The bench observed thus as Maharashtra’s then CS was a part of the selection meeting and had signed on its proceedings.
“Once a selection committee member has signed the proceedings, it is not open to him at a subsequent stage to renege from the selection,” Chief Justice Dipankar Datta orally observed, relying on the Supreme Court judgement of Chancellor vs Dr Bijay Ananda Kar.
The bench was hearing a PIL filed by Advocate Dutta Mane against the Maharashtra Government for not appointing a new DGP based on the three recommendations given by UPSC’s empanelment committee. His petition stated that IPS officer Sanjay Pandey could not continue as ‘acting DGP’ since the panel did not recommend him.
Mane had approached the court citing newspaper articles that the State was planning to continue with Pandey as DGP till his retirement in June 2022. The UPSC four-member committee had recommended names of three IPS officers following a meeting held on November 1.
State’s counsel Advocate General Ashutosh Kumbhakoni submitted that after the meeting, then Chief Secretary Sitaram Kunte had written to UPSC for not properly considering Pandey’s candidature on November 8.
He claimed that Pandey was the senior-most officer in the State and urged the court to wait until the UPSC committee decided on the letter.
However, the court dismissed the letter as an “afterthought,” noting that the CS had taken no objection during the meeting. The bench remarked that once the proceedings were drawn, the selection committee becomes functus offio and had no further legal authority. Therefore, a committee member couldn’t now state that the committee erroneously kept some material out of consideration.
“It was not proper on the part of the Chief Secretary if he has signed the minutes of November 1 meeting, to send the letter saying that the commission has erred. He could have given an independent opinion, “the Chief Justice observed.
“At this stage, the State Government cannot say that our representation to the Commission should be considered. After having signed this it was not open to the Chief Secretary to say the committee had erred, he should have done it before signing it,” he added.
During the hearing, Advocate Abhinav Chandrachud for the petitioner submitted that when the executive (DGP) is in an acting capacity, the rule of law is compromised because the politicians can interfere with the administration of law and order. “If the person holding the position of Director General of Police does not have the security of tenure, then it’s a very sad state of affairs,”he said.
He said it was important the State Government select the DGP of Maharashtra from amongst the three senior-most officers of the police department recommended by the Union Public Service Commission based on their length of service, good service record and range of experience. And once selected for the job, he should have a minimum tenure of 2 years, Chandrachud said.
Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh agreed. He submitted that the Maharashtra Government had submitted 21 names in August 2021, and in a meeting held on November 1, 2021, IPS officers Hemant Nagrale, Rajnish Seth and K. Venkatesham were shortlisted.
