Kolkata, Jan 6 (PTI) A hurdle, unprecedented in recent memory, confronts the appointment of the new DGP in West Bengal after the UPSC returned the panel of names submitted by the state, citing abnormal procedural delay, and advised it to seek appropriate directions from the Supreme Court, an official said on Tuesday.
The development comes at a critical time, as the tenure of the incumbent Director General of Police (In Charge), Rajeev Kumar, is due to come to an end in less than a month, on January 31, with a state election knocking on the doors.
“The state government had proposed an Empanelment Committee Meeting (ECM) to select a new DGP or head of the police force. However, the UPSC returned the proposal citing procedural irregularities and delay in the submission of the panel,” the official told PTI, requesting anonymity.
In its communication to the state Chief Secretary on December 31, the Union Public Service Commission’s Director (AIS), Nand Kishor Kumar, referred to the Supreme Court’s directions in Prakash Singh vs Union of India case in 2018 where it mandated that all states must forward their proposals to the UPSC at least three months prior to the retirement of the incumbent DGP to ensure a transparent, timely, and merit-based selection process.
According to the UPSC, the vacancy for the post of DGP (HoPF) in West Bengal arose on 28 December 2023 following the retirement of Manoj Malviya.
While the state government appointed Rajeev Kumar as Malviya’s successor and designated him as the DGP (In Charge), it forwarded a proposal panel of 10 names from the state’s existing repository of IPS officers only in July 2025 — more than one and a half years after the vacancy was created and well beyond the timeline prescribed by the apex court.
As per set rules for appointing a DGP, the state government selects one officer from the shortlisted names of UPSC’s Empanelment Committee after the state forwards its panel to the Committee within the mandatory time frame.
“The UPSC has informed the state that it cannot appoint anyone as the current DGP due to irregularities in the previous appointment,” the bureaucrat said.
“Technically, Manoj Malviya remains the last permanent DGP of the state,” he elaborated.
Since the tenure of the last permanent DGP ended in December 2023, the panel should have been sent by September that year, the official said.
“Notwithstanding, the ECM was convened on 30.10.2025. The Empanelment Committee went through the records and the clarification submitted by the state government regarding the delay in submission of the proposal,” the UPSC communication stated.
“However, divergent views emerged amongst the members of the committee regarding the date of occurrence of vacancy due to the delayed submission of the proposal by the state government. On this, the Commission decided to seek the opinion of the Learned Attorney General of India (AGI) in the matter,” it added.
The Commission cited the AGI’s observations in the matter who called the delay in forwarding names for empanelment “excessive”.
“I find no provision empowering the UPSC to condone such inordinate delay and then proceed as though no irregularity had occurred, ultimately recommending a panel of DGPs…. Accepting the proposal of State of West Bengal would create serious anomalies, as delayed reporting of vacancies may deprive legitimate aspirants of consideration for empanelment,” the Commission quoted the AGI as observing.
The Attorney General further noted that if the state faced any difficulty in adhering to the SC timeline, the appropriate course would have been to seek clarification or leave from the apex court itself.
Based on this legal opinion, the UPSC concluded that it could not proceed with the empanelment process and advised the state to seek appropriate directions from the Supreme Court.
In early December last year, senior IPS officer Rajesh Kumar moved the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), alleging that he was illegally excluded from the panel for the post of DGP of West Bengal, terming the decision “discriminatory and unreasonable.” Kumar, a 1990-batch officer, challenged the UPSC’s decision, claiming that his name should have been considered for the post of DGP among the top three, based on seniority, and claimed he was denied a fair opportunity due to “delayed and irregular process” adopted by the state government.
Taking cognisance of the matter, the CAT directed the UPSC to expedite its decision on the DGP empanelment for the state. PTI SCH NN SMY NN
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.