In other words, it meant the grant of pay scale to Respondent No.4 at best for the time he remained posted as Special Director in the Intelligence Bureau with the Central Government.
To save the Petitioner from the humiliation of subordination the Chief Minister himself directed his transfer and appointment as Director General of Police Commandant General, Home Guards Ex Officio Director, Civil Defence Director Fire Force Bangalore.
DPAR 72 SPS 94 dated 20,3.95 has to be modified as the said G.O. has been superseded by a subsequent Government Order No.
The selection is done by the Chief Minister who incidentally, is the Home Minister also.
The companysultation with the Minister of State for Home was recommended to be dispensed with on the ground of his being away abroad, The Chief Minister is shown to have companysidered the cases of all the eligible Officers.
Continuance of the Petitioner as DGP, COD Training Special Units and Economic offences was companysidered to be derogatory to him.
However, the Government of India was reported to have appointed him as Special Director, IB in the pay scale of Rs.
1999 3 SCR 708 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K VENKATASWAMI, J. Special leave granted.
Certificate of transfer of Charge shows that Respondent No.4 had in fact made over charge of his office as Special Director at IB Headquarters, New Delhi, on the afternoon of 5th of March 1997.
After carefully perusing the judgment under appeal and after hearing learned arguments of the companynsel appearing in both the appeals and also the first respondent, who is appearing in person, we are of the view that oh the admitted facts as found by the High Court, numbercase is made out for interference with the judgment under appeal.
The Services of Respondent No.4 are shown to have been placed at the disposal of the State Government by Order NO.I 4 97 5 11l9 dated 5th of March, 1997.
He directed for sending message to the Government of India to place the services of Respondent No 4.
On the basis of the performance of Respondent No.
4, which was shown to him to have been graded as outstanding in his ACR for the last 5 years companytinuously, the Chief Minister opined that Sri T. Srinivasulu was the, most suitable Officer for the post of DG IGP After ordering his appointment to the aforesaid post.
The first respondent in the appeal challenged the promotion and appointment of fourth respondent as DG and IGP by a Notification dated 6.3.97.
4 to his parent carde in the Slate of Karnataka.
2 to companysider him for appointment by selection to the post of DG IGP because admittedly only a person substantively holding the cadre of Director General of Police companyld be companysidered for appointment to the post of DG IGP.
The names including the name of the petitioner and Respondent No, 4 were submitted for companysideration.
The Petitioner, therefore, appears to be genuine in companyplaining that as uneqvals were treated alike, the action of Respondent No.
2 in appointing Respondent No.4 as DG IGP in the State of karnataka Was discriminatory and thus unconstitutional.
200/97.
The High Court on the aspect of number application of mind elavpraged further by observing as follows Both the Petitioner and Respondent No.4 have claimed to be in possession of various letters of appreciations, medals and awards which according to them make the one meritorious than the other.
at the disposal of the State Government, The Petitioner was directed to be transferred and appointed as Director General of Police Commandant General, Home Guards Ex officio Director, Civil Defence Director Fire Force, Bangalore, Strangely enough a letter dated 5th of March 1997 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs indicates the repatriation of Respondent No.
The Tribunal by its order dated 15.1,98 dismissed the O.A 200/97.
by approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal by preferring O.A. No.
4264/98, Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. C No.
The Secretary, DPAR in that behalf numbered Normally the DG IGP Kamataka is selected by the Government from among the eligible officers.
It was specifically mentioned that Respondent number 4 was in the rank of Additional Director General of police when he was in the State Government.
17842/98 was preferred by the fourth respondent in the first mentioned appeal.
If Respondent No.4 was number a Director General prior to 6th of March, 1997, then there was, numbermaterial before Respondent No.
Note prepared by the Deputy Secretary, D,P.A,R. Services dated 1.3,1997 shows that after Sri A.P. Duraiwas approved for appointment as Director General of Railway Protection Force in the Central Government, the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, had requested the State Government to relieve the officer immediately.
This letter apparently shows that the Chief Minister was misled to believe on 6th of March, 1997 that Respondent No.4 was still tin deputation with the Government of India, which persuaded him to request the Central Government for placing the services of Respondent No.4 at the disposal of the State Government.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the Division Bench, Both the Government of Karnataka and the Fourth respondent have preferred these appeals.
A Division Bench of the High Court accepted the appeal and quashed the impugned Notification promoting and appointing the fourth respondent as DG and IGP.
The reference to the parties hereinafter will be as in the appeal filed by the Government of Karnataka.
As the post of DG IGP held by Sri A.P. Durai was likely to fall vacant companysequent upon his deputation to Government of India, proposal was made for filling up the same by appointing one of the officers in the grade of DGP by selection.
The papers were thereafter submitted to the Chief Secretary, who on 3rd of March, 1997 further submitted the papers to the Chief Minister for his perusal with request to make selection after an over all assessment of the Officers eligible to be appointed to the post of DG IGP.
Aggrieved by that, the first respondent preferred W.P. No, 4264/98.
17043/98 was preferred by the Government of Karnataka while the other appeal arising put of S.L.P c No.
Both the appeals arise out of the judgment dated .23.10.98 of the Karnataka High Court in W.P. No.
7600 8000, which was the pay scale of DGP.
