Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta told the Supreme Court on Tuesday that Odisha had begun the appointment process to promote two senior police officers to the temporary DGP rank in 2024. After hearing submissions from all sides, a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana reserved its verdict.
The judgment is expected after October 8, when the apex court is scheduled to hear a similar petition concerning Jharkhand. The matter has been heard by the Supreme Court on eight occasions.
Defending the state government's decision, Mehta said Odisha had written to the Centre in 2024 seeking approval for two temporary DGP posts, which was granted. The move was intended to promote officers who had completed 30 years of police service and boost the morale of the force.
One officer was to be promoted to DGP rank on August 16, following the retirement of an officer, and another on November 30. Mehta urged the bench to view the state's decision positively.
The bench questioned why the state needed to create an ex-cadre post and add more names when the UPSC had already recommended three eligible cadre IPS officers in accordance with the Prakash Singh guidelines.
Mehta replied that the state wanted to ensure a larger pool of eligible candidates and had complied with the parameters of the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Prakash Singh guidelines.
The Supreme Court's scrutiny in the case has centred on compliance with transparency guidelines and the UPSC's role in reviewing and monitoring the selection process.
On IPS officer Susant Kumar Nath's integrity certificate being withdrawn, Mehta said service rules require vigilance clearance and that a future CBI angle could not be ruled out.
The controversy arose after the Odisha government did not select an officer from the panel of three senior cadre IPS officers recommended by the UPSC for DGP appointment. The state subsequently created an ex-cadre post and sent a fresh list of eight names to the UPSC, triggering legal and political controversy.
On the state's decision to send the names of two more officers to the UPSC on August 10, Mehta said there were then only three officers in the Level-16 pay matrix in the state.
If three names were sent, the UPSC could return the same three names to the state government for consideration. Mehta said the issue was not the number of names but their appropriateness or suitability.
Advocate General Pitambar Acharya told the bench that, in the Telangana matter, the court had directed that the names of all eligible officers be considered.
Justice Bagchi observed that the UPSC could consider the names of the three Level-16 officers for the DGP post. Only if there was a shortage of Level-16 officers could the state government send the names of Level-15 officers, he said.
