2012 (8) TMI 1191 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the appointment of Dinesh Reddy as DGP (HoPF).
2. Compliance with the Prakash Singh directive.
3. Effect of the stay of the Yadav judgment by the Supreme Court.
4. The principle of comity and its application.
5. The extent of the State's discretion in appointing the DGP (HoPF).

Summary:

Legitimacy of the Appointment of Dinesh Reddy as DGP (HoPF):
The appointment of Dinesh Reddy as DGP (HoPF) was challenged on the grounds that it transgressed the mandatory directive in Prakash Singh and others v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 1, and no due consideration was accorded to the seniority of Gautam Kumar. The Tribunal set aside the appointment, directing the State to conduct the selection afresh by forwarding the names of eligible officers to the UPSC for empanelment.

Compliance with the Prakash Singh Directive:
The Prakash Singh directive mandates that the DGP of the State shall be selected by the State Government from amongst the three senior-most officers empanelled by the UPSC. The State of Andhra Pradesh did not comply with this directive and instead followed an in-house selection process, which was found to be in violation of the Supreme Court's directive. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the Prakash Singh directive has continuing vitality and is non-derogable.

Effect of the Stay of the Yadav Judgment by the Supreme Court:
The State argued that the stay of operation of the Yadav judgment by the Supreme Court rendered the Prakash Singh directive inoperative. However, the High Court rejected this contention, stating that the stay of the Yadav judgment does not eclipse the principles and rationes contained therein. The Prakash Singh directive remains binding and must be followed.

The Principle of Comity and Its Application:
The State contended that the Tribunal should have deferred adjudication of Gautam Kumar's application until the Supreme Court disposed of the SLPs against the Yadav judgment. The High Court rejected this argument, stating that the principle of comity does not mandate suspension of adjudication in such circumstances. The doctrine of comity is intended to avoid conflict of judicial orders and does not apply to the facts of this case.

The Extent of the State's Discretion in Appointing the DGP (HoPF):
The State claimed it must have absolute freedom and discretion in appointing the head of the State police force. The High Court rejected this contention, stating that constitutional governance does not permit uncanalized or absolute discretion. The appointment to the post of DGP (HoPF) is governed by the All India Services Act and the relevant IPS Rules, and the State must comply with these regulations.

Directions:
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh must forward the names of all eligible officers in the rank of DGP in the HAG + Scale to the UPSC within one week.
2. The UPSC must prepare a panel and forward it to the State within two weeks.
3. The State must select one of the three senior-most officers from the UPSC panel for appointment as DGP (HoPF) within one week.
4. Dinesh Reddy may discharge the functions of DGP (HoPF) as an in-charge/officiating arrangement until a fresh appointment is made, but he will not draw the salary and emoluments attached to the post of DGP (HoPF).

Costs:
The writ petitions are dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000, payable by the State of Andhra Pradesh to the Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority within thirty days.