Delhi HC seeks reply from Haryana, UPSC on plea challenging DGP Manoj Yadava’s appointment

IPS officer Prabhat Ranjan Deo, who had filed the plea, said appointment of an officer junior to him as DGP was discriminatory.

Director General of Police (DGP) Manoj Yadava | Twitter/@police_haryana

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has sought a response from the Haryana government and the UPSC on a petition challenging the appointment of Haryana DGP Manoj Yadava.

After hearing submissions in detail, Justice Suresh Kait directed the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and the Haryana government to file their responses by 11 April when the matter will be heard next.

IPS officer Prabhat Ranjan Deo, who filed the petition, alleged that Yadava was appointed in contravention of settled principles as laid down in a Supreme Court judgment, and of guidelines issued by the central government with regard to appointment of DGP in the police hierarchy.

Deo — a veteran with 33 years of experience — said the appointment of an officer junior to him was discriminatory. The 1986-batch IPS officer of Haryana cadre sought to quash the 18 February order appointing Yadava on the grounds that the empanelment by the UPSC is “self-contradictory and completely overlooks and supersedes” his eligibility and seniority.

In his plea drafted by advocate Ashwarya Sinha, Deo submitted he was not only the senior-most officer deserving the post, but he also had an unblemished record for which he had earned the President’s Police Medal in 2013.

“The empanelment/recommendation of an ineligible candidate followed by appointment of Respondent No. 4 (Yadava), who is much junior to the petitioner herein and who has not completed 30 years of service and the UPSC itself vide its letter dated 31.1.2019 declared him ineligible was illegally appointed as Director General of Police (DGP), Haryana,” the petition stated.

“The petitioner will be forced to work under an ineligible officer and take instructions from his junior, which is not only unjust, unfair and unreasonable but also against the guidelines and the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment and orders,” Deo added.

SC order on selection of DGPs

In its 3 July 2018 verdict, the Supreme Court had issued directions with regard to selection, appointment and minimum tenure of DGPs. This was reinforced on 13 March this year when the top court clarified that the appointment to the post of DGP shall be recommended by the UPSC and preparation of panel shall be solely based on merit of officers who have at least six months of service prior to retirement.

Relying on the top court verdict, Deo said he had two years of service left on the date of the vacancy, which was 1 October 2018.

“That despite being fully eligible in view of the aforementioned directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the guidelines laid down by the Central Government and being the senior most amongst other candidates on the panel and the representation made by the petitioner was not even considered for promotion to the post of DGP by UPSC and was not empanelled for the post of DGP. The entire action of the UPSC is arbitrary, illegal, unfair, unjust and thus in violation of Article 14, 19 (1) (g) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India,” the petition said.