Upon companyparative assessment of merit, the Secretary, Home Department Police recommended that the second respondent be appointed.
Being aggrieved thereby, the first respondent moved the High Court by a writ petition.
The salient facts necessary for deciding this appeal arise as follows There are four posts of Director General of Police DGP in the State of West Bengal and they are a Director General Inspector General of Police DG IGP , b Director General Commandant General of Home Guards DGCGHG , c Director Training and d Director Intelligence .
2002 Supp 5 SCR 72 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SRI KRISHNA, J. By this appeal the State of West Bengal and its authorities impugn the judgment of the High Court at Calcutta which quashed an order of the State Government dated 23rd May, 2001 appointing the 2nd respondent as Director General and Inspector General of Police.
The appointment later was regularized by the Government order dated 10th July, 2001 by deleting the expression officiate.
By a subsequent Government order dated 10th July, 2001, his appointment was regularized by deleting the word Officiate.
The said two officers were D. Banerjee, who was then holding the post of Director Intelligence and S.K. Ghosh, who was then holding the post of Director General Commandant General Home Guards .
v. Union of India and Ors.,
DGPs in the panel, the first two officers K.P. Bandyopadhyay and R.C. Sharma were promoted to the DGP grade and appointed as Director Training and Director Intelligence , respectively.
By the Judgment dated 18th March, 2002 the High Court took the view that the appointment of the second respondent to the vacant post of OG IGP was illegal.
Pursuant to the judgment in Vineet Narayan supra the Central Government addressed a letter dated 15th January, 1999 to the Chief Secretaries to all States formulating the General Principles of promotion, formation of DPCs and their functioning etc.
In the initial merit list, the name of the First respondent appeared at serial number 2 and that of the second respondent at serial number6.
The first respondent Manas Kumar Chakraborty, who was then holding the post of Director Training , was shifted to the post of Director General Commandant General.
1998 1 SCC The Tribunal by an elaborate judgment rejected both the companytentions urged by the first respondent and dismissed his petition.
2001, to officiate in the post of DG IGP.
On 23rd May, 2001, the second respondent Dinesh Chandra Vajpai, who was then No.
24050 650 Rs.
All the four posts of DGP are in the grade and pay scale of Rs.
The Secretary, Home Department Police had companysidered the suitability of three officers in the DGP rank and respondent No.2, who was first in the panel, to find out the suitability of the incumbent for the post of DG IGP.
DGP, he was selected and empanelled for appointment as DGP.
Out of the three Addl.
On 28th December, 2000, while the second respondent was working as Addl.
In view of the ensuing elections in the State of West Bengal, which were scheduled to be held on 10.5.2001, the State Government sought extension of his tensure, but the extension sought for was number allowed by the Central Government.
26000.
One K.P. Bandyopadhyay and one R.C. Sharma, both of the 1966 batch, had been empanelled earlier and were awaiting vacancy for appointment in the grade of DGP.
The first respondent Manas Kumar Chakraborty and the second respondent Dinesh Chandra Vajpai are officers of the IPS cadre of the 1966 batch.
As on 28th February, 2001 the four posts of DGPs were held by the following incumbents D.K. Sanyal, DG IGP Manas kumar Chakraborty, DG CGHG K.P. Bandyopadhyay, Director Training R.C. Sharma, Director Intelligence K. Sanyal retired from the post DG IGP on 30th April, 2001.
C. Sharma, Director Intelligence held charge as DG IGP from 30.4.2001 until appointment of a new incumbent to the said post.
This recommendation was endorsed by the Chief Secretary, who, in his turn, forwarded the file to the Chief Minister with his endorsement that the second respondent be appointed as DG IGP in the vacant post.
On 23rd May, 2001, after companysidering the recommendations the Chief Minister approved the name of the second respondent for appointment as DG IGP.
1 in the Select List, was companysidered along with other 3 existing DGPs for suitability to be appointed to the post of DG IGP and he was promoted and appointed by a companyposite order to officiate in the post DG IGP.
The second respondent was, therefore, appointed by the order dated 23rd May.
All three at that stage were in the grade and pay scale of Additional Director General of Police ADGP .
The second ground on which the appointment of the second respondent was objected to was that there was numbercredible mechanism for the purpose of companyparative assessment of merit and selection to the post of Chief of Police as companytemplated by the Judgment of this Court in Vineet Narain and Ors.
On 28th February, 2001 two existing DGPs retired by taking voluntary retirement.
