<p class="title">The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its order on a plea for modifying the direction for considering only those IPS officers for appointment as state's DGP who had a remaining tenure of two years, saying it was being misused to ignore other senior officers.</p>.<p class="bodytext">A bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices L Nageswara Rao and Sanjiv Khanna concluded its hearing on the application moved by advocate Prashant Bhushan on behalf of former Uttar Pradesh DGP Prakash Singh.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Bhushan sought modification of the order passed by the apex court on July 3, 2018 wherein the top court had said “the Union Public Service Commission should empanel the persons, as far as practicable, from amongst the people within the zone of consideration who have got clear two years of service. Merit and seniority should be given due weightage.”</p>.<p class="bodytext">“This has resulted in senior officers being over-looked just because they do not have two years tenure left,” he said.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Attorney General K K Venugopal, appearing for the Centre, said if only those with a minimum two years tenure period were to be appointed as DGP it would have lead to “stagnation and demoralisation” among the senior officers. He also flagged the concern, saying in some states, acting DGPs were appointed and at the fag end of superannuation, the appointment was confirmed to grant a fixed tenure of two years.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Senior advocate Raju Ramachandra, acting as amicus curiae, submitted that according to him, those having even six months tenure left of service should be considered for the top post in police organisations.</p>
<p class="title">The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its order on a plea for modifying the direction for considering only those IPS officers for appointment as state's DGP who had a remaining tenure of two years, saying it was being misused to ignore other senior officers.</p>.<p class="bodytext">A bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices L Nageswara Rao and Sanjiv Khanna concluded its hearing on the application moved by advocate Prashant Bhushan on behalf of former Uttar Pradesh DGP Prakash Singh.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Bhushan sought modification of the order passed by the apex court on July 3, 2018 wherein the top court had said “the Union Public Service Commission should empanel the persons, as far as practicable, from amongst the people within the zone of consideration who have got clear two years of service. Merit and seniority should be given due weightage.”</p>.<p class="bodytext">“This has resulted in senior officers being over-looked just because they do not have two years tenure left,” he said.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Attorney General K K Venugopal, appearing for the Centre, said if only those with a minimum two years tenure period were to be appointed as DGP it would have lead to “stagnation and demoralisation” among the senior officers. He also flagged the concern, saying in some states, acting DGPs were appointed and at the fag end of superannuation, the appointment was confirmed to grant a fixed tenure of two years.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Senior advocate Raju Ramachandra, acting as amicus curiae, submitted that according to him, those having even six months tenure left of service should be considered for the top post in police organisations.</p>
