1

NON­REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

I.A. NO.24616 OF 2019

IN

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.310 OF 1996

 PRAKASH SINGH & ORS.  …PETITIONER(S)/

 APPLICANT(S) VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. … RESPONDENT(S) WITH

I.A.NO. 115064/2018, I.A.NO. 20735/2019, I.A.NO.11484/2019

JUDGMENT

RANJAN GOGOI, CJI

I.A. NO.24616 OF 2019

1. On an earlier occasion, this Court had the occasion

to deal with another application for clarification of this Court’s

order dated 3rd July, 2018 [i.e. I.A. No.144172 of 2018] though

in a different context.   While passing the order on the said I.A.

on 16.1.2019, this Court referring to the principles underlying

the judgment  of this  Court in  Prakash Singh & Ors.  vs.

2

Union of India & Ors.   1 had specifically noticed the relevant

directions issued under Article 142 of the Constitution of

India, which are in the following terms:  

“Selection and minimum tenure of DGP.  

(2)  The Director General  of  Police of the State shall be selected by the State Government from amongst the three seniormost officers of the Department who have been empanelled 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. 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. The DGP may, however, be relieved of his responsibilities by the State Government acting in consultation with the State Security Commission consequent upon any action taken against him under the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules or following his conviction in a court of law in a criminal offence or in a case of corruption, or if he is otherwise incapacitated from discharging his duties.”

2. Thereafter this Court took note of the fact that

different States have enacted their respective Police Acts

and/or have carried out further amendments in their

1 (2006) 8 SCC 1

3

respective Police Acts.  However, all such amendments did not

wholly follow the dictum laid down by this court in Prakash

Singh (supra).  This had led to filing of writ petition (i.e. Writ

Petition (Civil) No.286 of 2013 challenging the validity of the

provisions of Police Acts enacted by different States.   

3. Primary ground of challenge in Writ Petition (Civil)

No.286 of  2013  is that the  enactments  are  not in tune  or

rather negate the directions of this Court in  Prakash Singh

(supra).   

4. The present application (I.A. No.24616 of 2019) has

been filed by the applicants/petitioners for adequate

clarification of the directions contained in the order dated 3rd

July, 2018, (passed in I.A. No.25307 of 2018 in Writ Petition

No.310 of 1996) which are extracted below. Specifically, the

directions in clauses (e) and (f) have been argued to be

necessary to be clarified by this Court.    

“(a) All the States shall send their proposals in anticipation of the vacancies to the Union Public Service Commission, well in time at least three months prior to the date of

4

retirement of the incumbent on the post of Director General of Police;  

(b) The  Union Public Service  Commission shall prepare the panel as per the directions of this  Court in the judgment in  Prakash Singh’s case(supra) and intimate to the States;  

(c) The State shall immediately appoint one of the persons from the panel prepared by the Union Public Service Commission;  

(d) None of the States shall ever conceive of the idea  of  appointing  any  person  on  the post of Director General of Police on acting basis for there is no concept of acting Director General of Police as per the decision in Prakash Singh’s case(supra);  

(e) An endeavour has to be made by all concerned to see that the person  who was selected and appointed as the Director General of Police continues despite his date of superannuation. However, the extended term beyond the date of superannuation should be a reasonable  period.  We  say so  as it  has been brought to our notice that some of the States have adopted a practice to appoint the Director General of Police on the last date of retirement as a consequence of which the person continues for two years after his date of superannuation. Such a practice will not be  in  conformity with the spirit  of the direction.  

(f) Our direction No.(c) should be considered by the Union Public  Service

5

Commission to  mean that the persons are to be empanelled, 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.  

(g) Any legislation/rule framed by any of the States or the Central Government running counter to the direction shall remain in abeyance to the aforesaid extent.”

[emphasis supplied)  

5. The grievance raised by the applicants/petitions is

two­fold.    

To do away with  the practice  of  States appointing  the

Director  General of Police on the last date of the normal

tenure of an incumbent “so as to ensure that such

incumbents get extended term of two years in view of the

directions of this Court contained in Prakash Singh (supra)”

clarifications were issued by this court by order dated 3rd July,

2018 in paragraph (e) and (f), quoted above.   The said

directions do not seem to have ended the controversy

inasmuch as it is now the grievance of the

applicants/petitioners that the Union Public Service

Commission while  empanelling  officers for  consideration  for

6

appointment to the post of Director General of Police is

considering the minimum residual tenure required to be taken

into account as two years.   In the process, according to the

applicant,  many  suitable  and  eligible  officers  are  being left

out.  

6. Having read and considered the decision of this

court in Prakash Singh (supra) we are of the view that what

was emphasized in  Prakash  Singh  (supra) is a  minimum

tenure of two years for an incumbent once he is appointed as

the  Director  General  of  Police.  The direction  issued by this

Court neither contemplated the appointment of a  Director

General of Police on the eve of his retirement nor the practice

now adopted by the Union Public Service Commission in

making the empanelment, i.e. empanelling officers who have

at least two years of tenure.

7. Neither of the aforesaid practice, in our considered

view,  can  further the  directions of this  Court in  Prakash

Singh (supra) or give impetus to what this Court had in mind

in issuing the directions in  Prakash Singh  (supra), namely,

that the appointment of a Director General of Police in a State

7

should be purely on the basis of merit and to insulate the said

office from all kinds of influences and pressures,  once

appointed the incumbent should get a minimum tenure of two

years of service irrespective of his date of superannuation.  

8. Neither this Court had contemplated

recommendation  for appointment of  officers who are on the

verge of retirement or appointment of officers  who  have a

minimum residual tenure of two years. The emphasis was to

select the best and to ensure a minimum tenure of two years’

service of  such officer who is to be selected and appointed.

The  Police  Acts enacted  also  do  not contemplate  any fixed

residual tenure for an officer to be recommended for

appointment as the Director General of Police of a State.   In

the above conspectus the object in issuing the directions in

Prakash Singh  (supra), in our considered view, can best be

achieved if the residual tenure of an  officer i.e. remaining

period of service till normal retirement, is fixed on a

reasonable basis, which, in our considered view, should be a

period of six months.

8

9. This will take care of any possible action on the part

of the State Government which can be viewed by any quarter

as an act of favouritism.   Recommendations for appointment

of the Director General of Police on the eve of retirement of the

incumbent or of the Union Public Service Commission in

embarking upon a course of action which may have the effect

of overlooking efficient and eligible officers will stand obviated

by the above direction which we had deemed to be  fit  and

proper to issue.

10. We, therefore, clarify the order of this Court dated

3rd July, 2018 passed in I.A. No.25307 of 2018 in Writ Petition

No.310 of 1996 to mean that recommendation for

appointment to the post of Director General of Police by the

Union Public  Service  Commission and preparation of  panel

should be purely on the basis of merit from officers who have

a  minimum residual tenure  of six  months i.e.  officers  who

have at least six months of service prior to the retirement.

11. The  above  direction,  naturally,  will  hold the field

until the validity of the Police Acts in force which provides to

9

the contrary are examined and dealt with by this Court in Writ

Petition (Civil) No.286 of 2013.

12. All the Interlocutory Applications are disposed of in

terms of the above.  

………………………., CJI [RANJAN GOGOI]

………………………….,J [L. NAGESWARA RAO]

………………………….,J [SANJIV KHANNA]

NEW DELHI MARCH 13, 2019