news details |
|
|
| DB dismisses petition challenging appointment of SP Vaid as DGP J&K | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, May 16: A Division Bench of the State High Court comprising Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey and Justice MK Hanjura dismissed the petition filed by SK Mishra challenging appointment of SP Vaid as DGP J&K, as the petition of the petitioner sans merit.
DB after hearing both the sides observed "The Director General of Police of the State shall be selected by the State Government from amongst the three senior most officers of the Department who have been empaneled 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."
DB further observed that the Director General of Police (HoPF) in the apex scale (Level 17) has to be appointed from amongst the officers holding the post of Director General of Police in the State cadre (Level 16 of the Pay Matrix).
DB the assessment of the merit and other relevant facts for making selection on the post of Director General of Police was purely within the domain and jurisdiction of the State Government and, since the petitioner was also considered in the panel of eligible officers by the cabinet, so the petitioner cannot challenge the validity of the order by which SP Vaid has been selected and appointed as the Director General of Police (HoPF), J&K State.
Merely stating that the petitioner figures a step ahead of SP Vaid in the order of seniority cannot be a ground to challenge the validity of the order of selection/ appointment of SP Vaid to the post of Director General of Police, for which a variety of circumstances have to be taken note of, particularly, in view of the conditions prevailing in the State of Jammu & Kashmir which, by now, are obvious and do not require any retelling.
DB further observed that the Courts have to be loath in interfering in the policy/ administrative decision taken by the Government unless it smacks of arbitrariness, or to put it in other words, that it is irrational and not circumspect or is wayward, aberrant, malicious and capricious, offending the basic requirement of Article 14 of the Constitutions of India.
With these observations, Division Bench observed that the petition of the petitioner sans merit and dismissed the same. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
