9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (11) TMI 1181 - SC - Indian LawsEmpanelment and appointment of Respondent No. 4 as DGP (HoPF) - Whether preparation of the panel for selection of DGP (HoPF) for the State of Punjab was in contravention of a judgment of this Court in Prakash Singh v. Union of India 2006 (9) TMI 613 - SUPREME COURT ? - HELD THAT - In exercise of its power Under Articles 32 and 142 of the Constitution of India, this Court directed UPSC to constitute an empanelment committee to recommend three senior-most officers with good record of service and range of experience, and meeting other parameters, from whom the DGP shall be selected and appointed by the State Government. The incumbent DGP of the State is a member of the empanelment committee according to the Draft Guidelines issued by the UPSC. These Guidelines issued in compliance with the directions given by this Court Under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we would accept, are well-known and in public domain. Therefore, the position that Respondent No. 5, being the DGP, would be a member of the Empanelment Committee was within the knowledge of the Appellant. Ignorance of this factum when pretended must be rejected as a mere pretence. The Article states that as per the information gathered from officials privy to the development, the UPSC meeting will be held in Delhi and would be attended by the Punjab Chief Secretary Mr. Karan Avtar Singh and the incumbent DGP Mr. Suresh Arora, i.e., Respondent No. 5. In the given facts and considering the position and status of the Appellant, we would not accept the plea that participation of Respondent No. 5 in the Empanelment Committee was unknown or a secret for the Appellants. Whether the Appellants are estopped from challenging the recommendations made by the Empanelment Committee, given the fact that they had taken a calculated chance, and not protested till the selection panel was made public? - HELD THAT - The judgment in Madanlal 1995 (2) TMI 441 - SUPREME COURT refers to an earlier decision of this Court in Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and Ors. 1986 (3) TMI 329 - SUPREME COURT wherein the Petitioner who had appeared at an examination without protest was not granted any relief, as he had filed the petition when he could not succeed afterwards in the examination. This principle has been reiterated in Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar and Ors. 2010 (5) TMI 928 - SUPREME COURT and Ramesh Chandra Shah and Ors. v. Anil Joshi and Ors. 2013 (4) TMI 896 - SUPREME COURT . The Court in P.D. Dinakaran 2011 (7) TMI 1358 - SUPREME COURT had requested the Chairman to nominate another distinguished jurist in place of the person in question, duly noticing that the proceedings initiated had progressed only to the stage of framing of charges and nomination of another jurist would not hamper the proceedings. The reconstituted committee would be entitled to proceed on the charges already framed. The High Court has not committed any error in setting aside the judgment of the Tribunal and upholding the selection and appointment of Respondent No. 4 as DGP (HoPF), State of Punjab - appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Scope of judicial review/interference by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the decision of the Administrative Tribunal. 2. Validity of the Draft Guidelines 2009 issued by UPSC and their compliance with the Supreme Court's directions in Prakash Singh's case. 3. Legality of the core policing areas adopted by the Empanelment Committee. 4. Scope of judicial review in matters of empanelment and selection by the Selection/Empanelment Committee. 5. Allegations of bias in the empanelment and selection process. 6. Validity of the Tribunal's order dated 17.01.2020. Detailed Analysis: 1. Scope of Judicial Review/Interference by the High Court: The High Court examined the scope of judicial review under Article 226, emphasizing that judicial review is limited to grounds of illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety. The court referenced the principles laid out in landmark cases such as Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India and S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, highlighting that the judiciary's role is to ensure that the government acts within the bounds of the Constitution. 2. Validity of the Draft Guidelines 2009: The High Court upheld the validity of the Draft Guidelines framed by UPSC, stating that they were in compliance with the Supreme Court's directions in Prakash Singh's case. The court noted that the guidelines, which include criteria such as length of service, very good record, and range of experience, were designed to implement the court's directives objectively. The Tribunal's conclusion that the Draft Guidelines lacked authenticity was set aside. 3. Legality of Core Policing Areas: The High Court approved the selection of five core policing areas (Intelligence, Law and Order, Administration, Investigation, and Security) by the Empanelment Committee, noting that these areas were chosen based on the peculiar needs of the State of Punjab. The court found no arbitrariness in this selection and rejected the appellant's claim that the areas were tailored to favor a particular candidate. 4. Scope of Judicial Review in Empanelment and Selection: The High Court reiterated that courts should defer to the expertise of selection committees and should not reassess the comparative merits of candidates unless the selection process is vitiated by bias, mala fides, or contravention of statutory provisions. The court referenced several judgments, including Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan and M.V. Thimmaiah v. UPSC, to support this principle. 5. Allegations of Bias: The High Court and the Supreme Court both found no merit in the appellant's allegations of bias against a member of the Empanelment Committee. The court noted that the appellant did not raise any objection to the member's participation during the selection process and only raised the issue after the selection results were unfavorable. The court applied the principle from Madan Lal v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, stating that a person who takes a chance and participates in a process cannot later challenge it on grounds of bias. 6. Validity of the Tribunal's Order: The Supreme Court found that the Tribunal erred in its judgment by holding that the Empanelment Committee deviated from the procedure prescribed by the Supreme Court in Prakash Singh's case. The court concluded that the preparation of the panel by the Empanelment Committee was in compliance with the Draft Guidelines and the directions issued in Prakash Singh's case. The court upheld the High Court's decision to set aside the Tribunal's order and confirmed the selection and appointment of the respondent as DGP (HoPF). Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court's judgment that the selection and appointment of the respondent as DGP (HoPF) were valid and in accordance with the guidelines and directions issued by the Supreme Court. The court found no evidence of bias or procedural impropriety in the selection process.
|
