New Delhi: Delhi High Court decided on Tuesday that there was no irregularity, illegality or weakness in the appointment of IPS officers Gujarat Rakesh Asthana as Police Commissioner Delhi and dismiss the challenging pills of his choice.
Chairman of the Chairman of the Judge DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh said that the procedure adopted for the appointment of the 1984 Batch IPS officer was followed for “almost a decade” and some “free joint movements” must be given to the authorities in such things remembering the requirements Unique from the national capital.
“A total of eight police commissioners in Delhi, have been appointed by the central government since 2006 before the appointment of Respondents No.2 (Asthana), following the same procedure as followed for the appondents of No.2 here.
There has never been an objection to the appointment …
well by UPSC or other parties, “the court stated in the 77-page assessment.
Asthana, serving as the Director General of the Border Security Force, was appointed as Commissioner on July 27, four days before his retirement on July 31.
Sadre Alam’s Applicants seeking arrangement from Orthana July 27 appointed asthana as Police Commissioner Delhi while giving him deputation and extension of services between one year cadres.
Delhi has witnessed a challenging legal and order situation, has international consequences, and thus in the central discretion, there is a must to choose “experienced officers” for the post.
The court further clarified that the Supreme Court’s decision in the Prakash Singh case, which mandated the minimum period for certain police officials and the UPSC panel constitution before the selection, did not apply to the appointment of the Police Commissioner for Delhi but “intended to apply.
Only for the appointment of the state DGP”.
“It should be remembered that Delhi, becoming an Indian capital, has a unique, special and specific requirement.
It has witnessed several unwanted incidents and very challenging laws and the situation of order / riots / crime, which has international implications, which in wisdom The central government needs the appointment of an experienced officer who has a diverse and diverse experience to carry out massive martawans.
Security force regardless of other factors.
“As derived from the Affidavit counter by responders No.
1 (center), the reliable order is passed by maintaining the factors mentioned above, “said the court.” The court also found benefits in the conflict of respondents No.
1 Delhi, being the capital of India, has its own characteristics, distinctive factors, complexity and sensitivity, which are much lower in other comicions.
Each unward incident in the national capital or law and the order situation will have a consequence, impact, a distant impact.
And implications are not only in India but in all international borders.
Thus, it is very important that the “free movement of the joint” was given to the central government for the appointment of the Police Commissioner, Delhi, given the complexity obtained in the capital, “it was added.
The court also argued that the Center had strength under the law to provide representatives between cadres and relaxes The rules of the service to allow the extension of the dates of supernu breast milk.
“We did not find irregularities, illegality, or weaknesses in the action of No.1 respondents in appointing respondents No.
2, following the procedure that was followed for almost a decade, “the verdict ruled.” (I) F procedure has been attended by the central government since 2006 …
which has survived in the test of time, without demur / objection / challenges in court or The same legal forum, the same unity.
We thus see no reason to direct respondents No.
1 to deviate from long practices and procedures followed for the appointment of police commissioners, Delhi …
in our view, justification and reasons given by respondents No.
1 to appoint No.
1 2 It makes sense, calling without interruption in the court review, “he added.
The applicant has claimed that the appointment of Asthana in a clear and openly violation of the Supreme Court’s direction in the case of Prakash Singh.
This center said that the appointment of asthana and extension of tenure was carried out in interests general and there are no candidates who are suitable for posts in the IPC agmut cadre.
This center handed over the PIL, and the intervention of the NGO center for public interest in litigation (CPIL) – which has challenged Asthana’s appointment before the Supreme Court, “worthy of being dismissed at a cost that should be researched “Asthana told the court that there was a sustainable social media campaign against it and the legal challenges for their appointment were misuse of legal processes, arising from Vendetta.