Mumbai: Bombay High Court on Monday roasting the country and questioning how on November 1 last year can then declare the Sitaram Sitar secretary as a member of the selection committee in three names recommended for the Director General of Maharashtra and one week later wrote to UPSC said the panel was wrong In decision making and seeking consideration of the name Sanjay Pandey.
“It is not feasible for CS (Sitaram Kunte) that has been written on November 8,” The bench commented verbally on the hearing of public interest litigation (pills) looking for clues to the country to accelerate the appointment of permanent DGP for Maharashtra.
Pandey, as an Arrival officer, is a DGP acting.
The state, through his advocate General Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, tried to submit Affidavit in return, said the post had fallen empty suddenly after the former transfer of DGP Subodh Jaiswal to the CBI, but the HC bench from the Chairman of the Datta Judge and Justice MS Karnik, who heard the shipment, asked how Replies can increase the case further outside the submission and documents.
Kumbhakoni said the assessment issue and candidate value was discussed, but HC verbally observed that it was not mentioned in the minutes of the meeting and added, “minutes did not even refer to the objection of the head secretary.
This is nothing but reflection.
There is nothing in a few minutes.” Kumbhakoni said because the wrong interpretation to treat ‘very good’ as ‘good’, the committee recommended three names at the time, and found an error was written for UPSC and sent all records for the fourth candidate.
The bench verbally said, “What we found from (The) Pill was a meeting on November 1, 2021 and the Commission recommended three names.
If CS is a party for it, can he then say the commission is not right in disposing ‘a’ or ‘b ‘Members for post? Can the election committee members write back that the committee hasn’t considered this or that aspect? “HC said,” If he (CS) is not sure he should ask other members to delay for some time.
” HC told the country, “After signing this, whether it was open to Mystan CS said that the Committee was wrong.
After signing some sanctity must be given …
it cannot be trampled; there is a procedure …
has signed a process, you cannot claim The decision was wrong and it was reconsidered.
“The Selection Committee recommended Hemant Nagral, Rajnish Seth and K Venkatesham for DGP posts but not Pandey, said ASG Anil Singh for the center.
He said, “How can the committee flood the objections now?” He added that SC said the country could not be without a permanent DGP.
Abhinav Chandrachud, advice for the Petitioner, an advocate based in the city of Datta Mane, cites the scores of SC to show why the state must accelerate the appointment.
He said by asking UPSC to reconsider the recommendations and delay the process of appointment of a permanent DGP, the Maharashtra government violated SC verdict on police reform in the case of Prakash Singh.
HC also noted that SC said DGP must have a two-year term and already, three recommended names will have less than that.
Chief Justice said, “We will not delay further hearing” but, give AG time to generate an assessment to show why the submission that the fourth name is considered correct, posing the first hearing on Tuesday.
HC asks the country, “Why don’t you receive recommendations with Grace?” The AG said, “But for this communication sent by CS which is delayed with UPSC.” He said the upsc might be asked to decide whether it was given the fourth name too, and once it was clear, the country would continue.
AG said, “We constantly remind UPC to make decisions – whether it tends to consider the fourth or only three names.”
HC Maha Govt’s question flip-flop on behalf for the DGP Post
