The Maharashtra government on Thursday informed the Bombay High Court that it was ready to "reconsider" its representation to the UPSC to reassess IPS officer Sanjay Pandey's name for the post of state Director General of Police (DGP). Advocate General Ashutosh Kumbhakoni made the statement on behalf of the state government before a bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice M S Karnik. Kumbhakoni made the statement following the day's hearing on a public interest litigation filed by advocate Datta Mane, seeking directions to the state government to appoint a DGP in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in its 2006 judgement on police reforms in the Prakash Singh case.
During the hearing, the bench went through several files submitted by the state government pertaining to Pandey's Annual Confidential Reports (ACR). It noted that the state government had gone "out of its way" to increase at a later stage, grades awarded to Pandey in his ACRs. "Our view is that Respondent number five (Pandey) seems to be the blue-eyed officer of the state government. Once he is appointed as the state DGP, he will never be able to discharge his official duties in accordance with the Prakash Singh judgement. There will be a relationship of give and take," the bench observed. "Therefore, such an officer should never be considered for the post of the DGP. We will go to that extent and say that the state government has gone out of its way to change his grading. And we will show how from the files," it said. The High Court had on Wednesday directed Kumbhakoni to submit the said files following submissions by the petitioner's counsel Abhinav Chandrachud and the Union government's counsel Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh, who had argued that Pandey's request for reassessment of his grades from the year 2011-2012 had been declined by the state referral board in 2019.
However, Pandey wrote to the board again in 2021 with the same request, and this time, the board increased his score of 5.6 to 8, without ascribing any reasons. Chandrachud and Singh had told the court that there was no legal provision for such reassessment. Singh had further said that the state government had acted "illegally" in increasing Pandey's ACR grade. According to the PIL, in November 1, 2021, the UPSC selection committee had held a meeting in New Delhi to shortlist three names from a list of 18 IPS officers for the post of Maharashtra DGP that was left vacant mid-term after Subodh Jaiswal was transferred to the CBI as the central agency's director. Pandey was appointed as the acting Maharashtra DGP by the state government. Though the list of 18 officers included Pandey's name, the selection committee did not recommend him for the post, it was stated. On November 8, the then Maharashtra chief secretary Sitaram Kunte, who was also a member of the UPSC selection committee, had signed off and agreed to the three names recommended by the UPSC for the post. He later wrote back to the UPSC asking that Pandey's candidature be reconsidered for the post.
The PIL claimed that Kunte could not have done so and also, that the Prakash Singh judgement did not provide for an ad hoc or acting DGP of a state. On Wednesday, the bench had asked the state government if it was "favouring" Pandey for the post. On Thursday, while initially defending the state's representation to the UPSC, Kumbhakoni subsequently said that he had instructions from the state government to make a statement that the latter was willing to reconsider its representation sent to the UPSC on Pandey's candidature. "I have instructions from the state government. The state wants two weeks' time. By then, it will reconsider its position," he said. The bench granted the state some time and said that it must inform the court by February 21 what it has decided on Pandey's candidature.
The High Court closed all arguments in the case and permitted the parties, including Pandey, to submit their written notes by February 16. Pandey's advocate, senior counsel Navroz Seervai told the court that the state government had not favoured Pandey for anything. "He (Pandey) is the last person about whom it can be said that he is a favoured person or that he is a blue-eyed officer," Seervai said. "My client is not the blue-eyed boy for anybody, instead, he has had to suffer because of injustice for 15 years by whoever was in the government. To suggest that he is favoured is really contrary to his record and what he had to go through from 2000 to 2016," he said. The petitioner's counsel Chandrachud told the court that the PIL was not meant for fixing the blame on any individual, but it was instead merely seeking directions to the state to appoint a permanent DGP at the earliest and in accordance with the Prakash Singh judgement. "All we want is a judgement from the court so that in future, this doesn't happen," Chandrachud said. The High Court then said that it will pass a judgement after the state government's decision is conveyed to the court by February 21.
PTI Inputs
