The Delhi High Court Wednesday refused to difficulty discover on a petition difficult the appointment of Gujarat-cadre IPS officer Rakesh Asthana as Delhi Police Commissioner at this stage and requested if every other plea regarding his appointment is pending earlier than any court docket.
“Is any such matter pending before any other court?” requested Chief Justice D N Patel whereas listening to a petition by one Sadre Alam in opposition to Mr Asthana’s appointment and extension of service by one 12 months.
Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma mentioned that to his data, no such problem was pending earlier than every other court docket as of now.
Central authorities standing counsel Amit Mahajan mentioned, “The department was not aware of it”.
The bench which additionally comprised Justice Jyoti Singh requested the counsel to take directions on the side and proceeded to adjourn the listening to.
“Just take instructions. Find out and come on Monday,” it mentioned.
Advocate B S Bagga, representing Sadre Alam, urged the court docket to difficulty discover on the petition.
The court docket, nonetheless, responded: “No, no. We are still going to read everything. We will see.”
ASG Sharma submitted that it had turn into a enterprise for “so-called-integrity-keepers” to problem any appointment made by the authorities.
He submitted that Sadre Alam had no locus to problem Mr Asthana’s appointment.
Advocate Bagga argued that Mr Asthana’s appointment was in violation of the prevailing service regulation.
“Four days before retirement he was appointed to the post,” Mr Bagga said as he claimed that the service situations mandate a minimal residual tenure of six months.
The 1984-batch IPS officer, serving because the director common of Border Security Force, was appointed Delhi Police Commissioner on July 27, 4 days earlier than his superannuation on July 31.
In his petition, Sadre Alam has sought quashing of the July 27 order issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs appointing Mr Asthana because the Delhi Police Commissioner and in addition the order granting inter-cadre deputation and extension of service to him.
It additionally seeks initiation of steps for appointing Delhi Police Commissioner strictly in accordance with the route issued by the Supreme Court earlier.
“The impugned orders (of MHA) are in clear and blatant breach of the directions passed by the Supreme Court of India in Prakash Singh case as (i) respondent no.2 (Asthana) did not have a minimum residual tenure of six months; (ii) no UPSC panel was formed for appointment of Delhi Police Commissioner; and (iii) the criteria of having a minimum tenure of two years has been ignored,” the plea mentioned.
It claimed the High-Powered Committee comprising the Chief Justice of India, Prime Minister and the Leader of Opposition, in its assembly held on May 24, 2021, rejected the Central authorities’s try to appoint Mr Asthana because the CBI Director on the idea of the “six-month rule” as laid down by the Supreme Court in Prakash Singh.
The appointment of Mr Asthana to the submit of Commissioner of Police, Delhi have to be put aside on the identical precept, it mentioned.
A petition with comparable prayers has already been filed earlier than the Supreme Court by NGO, Centre for Public Interest Litigation”, urging to direct the central authorities to provide the July 27 order it issued, approving the inter-cadre deputation of Mr Asthana from Gujarat cadre to AGMUT cadre.
The petition, moved by advocate Prashant Bhushan, has additionally urged the highest court docket to put aside the Centre’s order to increase Asthana’s service interval.
A contempt plea within the prime court docket by advocate M L Sharma has been filed in opposition to Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah for appointing Mr Asthana as Delhi Police Commissioner in alleged violation of the judgement in Prakash Singh case.
In his petition, Mr Sharma has mentioned that in response to the highest court docket’s judgement of July 3, 2018, the method of appointment ought to start three months previous to the emptiness and the particular person being appointed should have an affordable interval of service left.
Besides the contempt motion, the plea has sought a declaration from the highest court docket that the appointment of Mr Asthana be held unlawful “being contrary to the judgment dated July 3, 2018”.
The matter can be heard subsequent on August 24.
(This story has not been edited by India07 employees and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
(THIS STORY HAS NOT BEEN EDITED BY INDIA07 TEAM AND IS AUTO-GENERATED FROM A SYNDICATED FEED.)