Selection of police chiefs go haywire
During pronouncement of the Supreme Court order, there was only one rank of DGP in the IPS.
Each state had its own method of selecting the head of its police force till recently. However a judgement of the Supreme Court in the Prakash Singh case delivered in late 2006 changed the scenario. In its order the Supreme Court stated that “the Director General of Police of the state shall be selected by the state government from amongst the three senior most officers of the department who have been empanelled for promotion to the rank by the Union Public Service Commission on the basis of their length of service, very good record and range of experience for heading the police force and once he has been selected for the job he should have a minimum tenure of at least two years irrespective of his date of superannuation.”
At the time of pronouncement of Supreme Court order, there was only one rank of DGP in the Indian Police Service. Consequent to the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission the Government of India created a new post of DGP designating it as ‘Head of Police Force.’ While the HOPF or police chief was placed in the pay range of Rs 80,000 fixed, Directors General of Police were placed in the pay scale of Rs 75,500-80,000. Consequent to the creation of the post of HOPF, the IPS pay rules were amended in 2007.
Heartburning rule
The amended pay rules stated that for selection to the post of police chief only officers who are in the rank of DGPs are eligible for consideration. It is this rule that has caused some heartburn. According to the Supreme Court order, three senior most police officers are only eligible for consideration. However if we go by the amended pay rules the three senior most officers in a state may not be in the rank of DGP and hence may not be eligible for consideration for promotion.
For eg, in smaller states there may be only one post of DGP HOPF and one or two others of DGPs. When the DGP (HOPF) retires, the consideration will be limited to only one or at best two DGPs and hence three persons may not be available for consideration. However in bigger states like Karnataka this would not be a problem.
The second confusion that has arisen is with regard to the role of UPSC in the empanelment of officers of the post of DGP (HOPF). By virtue of UPSC (Exemption from Consultation) Regulations 1958, the UPSC is expressly exempted from being involved in the matter of promotion to the post of DGP (HOPF). After the order by the Supreme Court, the UPSC felt that the existing regulations needs an amendment. Hence the UPSC filed an interlocutary application before the Supreme Court seeking direction as to how to proceed in the matter. The application is still pending in the Supreme Court.
In the meanwhile a dispute arose regarding the appointment of DGP (HOPF) Maharashtra and the high court of Mumbai directed the UPSC to be involved in the empanelment process. The UPSC in order to comply with the above direction framed its own guidelines as to how it should empanel officers.
These guidelines however were not approved either by the Cadre Controlling authority of the IPS namely MHA or the Dept of Personnel and Training. However, UPSC continued to be involved in the process of selection of HOPF of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka consequent to court directions.
It is to be mentioned that despite Supreme Court orders many states are not approaching UPSC for appointment of DGP (HOPF). Because of the factors mentioned above there is still ambiguity in the matter and every state is having its own procedure/method of selecting the DGP.
Hence even though almost five years have elapsed since the Supreme Court order, the last word has not been said about the selection of DGP (HOPF) due to which lot of confusion is prevailing and every day courts are being approached by affected officers.
Since the post of DGP (HOPF) is very important and sensitive post, since there is ambiguity for the selection process, the morale and well being of the force has been seriously affected. Certain State Governments have not even bothered to fill up the post of police chief.
In at least 3 states in-charge arrangements are in force and officers who are 7th or 10th in the seniority list and sometimes not even in the rank of DGP, have been appointed as in charge head of police. This seriously affects the functioning of the police department which follows a pyramidal structure.
The selection of DGP (HOPF) in states has become a tricky one and only the apex court which is monitoring the implementation of its orders can set the matter right.
(The writer is a retired DGP, Karnataka)
