DGP ROW Mishra’s plea challenging SP Vaid’s appt dismissed

‘Merit, not Seniority, has to prevail’

JAMMU: Deciding on the contention over two most senior police officers of the state, the High Court on Wednesday dismissed the petition filed by S K Mishra, presently Managing Director, J&K Police Housing Corporation, challenging appointment of Dr S P Vaid, as Director General of Police, terming it as without any merit.

Mishra- the senior most IPS officer in the state, had filed a petition, after Vaid, second in seniority list, was appointed by the government as the state police chief in December 2016, challenging the same on the basis of seniority.

While dismissing the petition, a Division Bench of the State High Court comprising Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey and Justice MK Hanjura on Wednesday observed, “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 empaneled for promotion to that 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.”

“Merely stating that the petitioner figures a step ahead of SP Vaid in the order of seniority cannot be a ground to challenge the validity of the order of selection/ appointment of SP Vaid to the post of Director General of Police, for which a variety of circumstances have to be taken note of, particularly, in view of the conditions prevailing in the State of Jammu & Kashmir which, by now, are obvious and do not require any retelling,” it said.

Asserting that J&K is unique from any other State of the country, the court said, “The priority of the Government, in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, is to maintain peace and harmony amongst the different sections of the people and, at the same time, to deal with the menace of militancy in an effective and efficient way.

“Therefore, it becomes all the more necessary to single out a person for holding the coveted post of the Director General of Police (HoPF), who is well versed with the situation and the circumstances prevailing in the State of Jammu and Kashmir and has the zeal, zest and competence to deal with these situations. “The Cabinet, in its wisdom, found the SP Vaid to be a fit and suitable person to man the post of Director General of Police (HoPF), J&K State and, therefore, such a decision of the Cabinet cannot be called in question before a Court,” it said.

DB further observed that it is not the seniority that holds the roost in making selection/ appointment of the Director General of Police, but the merit that has to prevail and has a binding force.

Giving reference of the governing clauses of the Indian Police Service (Pay) Rules, 2016, the court asserted, which states, “The post of Director General of Police (Head of Police Force) in the apex scale (Level 17) shall be filled by selection from amongst the officers holding the post of Director General of Police in the State cadre in the Level 16 of the Pay Matrix”, the bench said that the assessment of the merit and other relevant facts for making selection on the post of DGP was purely within the domain and jurisdiction of the State Government and, since the petitioner was also considered in the panel of eligible officers by the cabinet, so the petitioner cannot challenge the validity of the order by which SP Vaid has been selected and appointed as the DGP (HoPF), J&K State.

“The petitioner (Mishra) is still working as Director General of Police and no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioner by the appointment of SP Vaid as the Director General of Police (HoPF),” it said.

With regard to another contention raised by Mishra, i.e. parity with SP Vaid in the grant of emoluments, etc., the court said, “On the analogy of the rules cited, it is only the person who mans the post of Director General of Police that the scale of pay attached to the post can be allowed/ granted in his favour. The grant of pay scale is related to performance of function attached to that post and, as long as a person has not been appointed to that post, he cannot be deemed to have performed the functions thereof by implication.”

With these observations, Division Bench observed that the petition of the petitioner sans merit and dismissed the same.