New Delhi: A plea has been filed in the Delhi high court challenging the appointment of IPS officer Rakesh Asthana to the post of Delhi Commissioner of Police.
The plea, filed by one Sadre Alam through advocate B.S. Bagga, challenges the July 27 order made by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) on the grounds that Asthana’s appointment was in violation of Rule 56 (d) of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958. This rule states that no civil servant shall receive an extension of service beyond the retirement age of 60 years.
The plea also seeks direction from the court to the Union government, through the Ministry of Home Affairs, to appoint a new police commissioner for Delhi in accordance with the Supreme Court’s directions laid out in the case Prakash Singh v. Union of India, as reported by Bar and Bench.
Three aspects of the Prakash Singh case are particularly relevant while considering Asthana’s appointment by the ACC:
- Empanelment to the Arunachal Pradesh, Goa Mizoram other Union Territories including Delhi (AGMUT) cadre All India Services must be done by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC).
- The requisite residual tenure of the officer in question must be a minimum of six months.
- The appointment must be for a minimum tenure of two years, irrespective of the date of superannuation.
Asthana, coming from the Gujarat cadre of the civil services, was deputed to the AGMUT cadre through the same order as that of his appointment; therefore not by the UPSC. Further, he only had four days remaining in his tenure, not six months; and he was only appointed for a period of one year.
On the basis of these discrepancies, the plea alleges that Asthana’s appointment to the post had been made in order to, “..hand over the sensitive post of the Delhi Police Commissioner to their favoured IPS officer on the verge of his retirement” according to a report by LiveLaw.
The plea seeks to quash the ACC’s impugned order appointing Asthana to the post. Additionally, it seeks the production of the order which permitted Asthana’s inter-cadre deputation and the extension of his service period and for this order to be set aside. Finally, it seeks direction to the Centre to initiate fresh steps to appoint a new Delhi police commissioner, “strictly in accordance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court of India in the Prakash Singh case.”
An earlier plea filed in the Supreme Court by senior advocate Prashant Bhushan’s NGO, Centre for Public Interest Litigation, challenged Asthana’s appointment to the post on similar grounds vis-a-vis the Prakash Singh case.
Alam’s plea was heard on August 18 by a division bench led by Chief Justice D.N. Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh. Advocate B.S. Bagga, appearing for the petitioner, argued on the basis of the key points from the Prakash Singh judgement as mentioned above. Additionally, Bagga brought up that there are certain posts for which an officer’s service period may be extended beyond the retirement age of 60 as per Rule 56(d) All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules. However, Asthana’s previous post as Director General (DG) of the Border Security Force (BFS) is not one such post.
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma responded by questioning the locus standi (capacity to bring an action to court) for the petitioner, dubbing individuals such as Alam “so called integrity keepers” and accused them of challenging “any and every appointment” as reported by Bar and Bench. He went on to note that the case was a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in a ‘service matter’ which the Supreme Court doesn’t allow. In the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal (2004), the apex court held that PILs in service matters must be held as not maintainable.
The high court has listed the matter for further hearing on Monday, August 24 and has declined to issue notice as the bench continues to review the issue.