Plea before Telangana HC over appointment of state police chief in violation of Supreme Court directions, Govt asked to respond

The petitioner, as a party-in-person, argued that the apex court has ruled in the ‘Prakash Singh vs Union of India’ case that no state shall appoint a head of police force on an acting basis. He submitted that the state was required to submit proposals for vacancies to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) at least three months before the superannuation of the incumbent DGP-HOPF to ensure a permanent appointment from a panel approved by the UPSC.

‘Panel forwarded to UPSC’

Dhangopal Rao submitted before the court the response from the UPSC to his RTI application, which clarified that no meeting of the empanelment committee has taken place for the post of DGP-HOPF in Telangana. He stated that the RTI response was proof that the state has failed to send the required list of eligible senior IPS officers to the UPSC for the purpose of selection of the shortlisted candidates.

Advocate General A Sudharshan Reddy responded by stating that a panel was sent to the UPSC by the state government. Reddy contended that the UPSC then sought clarifications, while some senior officers had also retired from the service. He sought the petition to be dismissed as a writ of quo-warranto (to challenge the authority of a person holding public office) was not maintainable. According to him, any violations of the apex court orders should be raised through contempt proceedings in the Supreme Court.

The court averred that the state is bound to comply with the apex court’s orders, and the advocate general agreed that there was no two ways about it. He argued that the orders in the Prakash Singh judgment were not the end, and many orders were passed even after that. He requested the court not to pass any interim orders in the writ petition, which the court agreed to while directing the AG to submit written instructions by Monday.