Telangana High Court junks plea challenging State DGP's appointment

Hyderabad: The High Court Division Bench headed by Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice N Tukaramji dismissed the PIL challenging the appointment of Telangana Director General of Police M Mahender Reddy IPS. He was appointed as In-charge DGP on November 12, 2017 and as the DGP on April 12, 2018.

Vijay Gopal, a private employee from Secunderabad, has challenged the appointment of Mahender Reddy filing a public interest litigation alleging that the State ought to have selected the DGP from amongst three senior-most officers of the Department empanelled for promotion to that rank by the Union Public Service Commission, whereas the State government has enacted a legislation viz., "The Telangana Police (Selection and Appointment of Director General of Police (Head of Police Force) Act 2018 dated March 30, 2018 and appointed the DGP.

Yakarapu Sheelu, counsel for the petitioner, submitted before the Chief Justice Bench stating that the Act, 2018 brought out by the Telangana government appointing the DGP itself was under challenge and the appointment was contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prakash Singh & others Vs., Union of India in WP( Civil) No. 310 of 1996 dated September 22, 2006.

Advocate General Banda Shivananda Prasad informed the Chief Justice Bench that the Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Singh & others Vs., Union of India vide its orders dated 20-3-2019 has observed that in the light of the aforesaid orders, the " The Telangana Police (Selection and Appointment of Director General of Police (Head of Police Force) Act 2018 dated 30th March, 2018 itself is under examination before the Supreme Court.

Moreover, Advocate General informed the bench that appointment of the DGP is a service matter and as per the judgement of Supreme Court and the orders passed by the Division Bench of the Telangana High Court, PILs and writs filed on service matters are not maintainable before the Courts.

Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma questioned the counsel as to "how is he (petitioner) aggrieved by the appointment of the DGP... What is the public interest involved in it…? I want to know the public interest involved in this PIL"

Further, the CJ before dismissing the PIL said, "The Supreme Court as in the case of Duryodhan Sahu, Prakash Singh & others Vs., Union of India etc., has categorically stated that PILs on service matters are not maintainable... the Act under which the DGP is appointed is under the scrutiny of the Apex Court, hence, this Court is refraining itself from commenting on the Act framed by the Telangana government."