New Delhi:Justifying the appointment of Rakesh Asthana as the Delhi Police Commissioner, the Centre in its affidavit told Supreme Court that it was necessary to appoint an officer like Rakesh Asthana as Delhi Police Commissioner keeping in view the extremely challenging security and the law and order situation in the national capital.
"Petitioner claims to be espousing a public cause, never considered challenging appointment of eight erstwhile police commissioners though they were appointed in the same manner as is done in the case of Respondent 2(Rakesh Asthana). Such a selective exhibition of public interest speaks volumes about the motive behind filing the present petition and writ petition in the Supreme Court," read the affidavit.
The Centre had submitted the affidavit in response to the petitions challenging Asthana’s appointment on July 27 last year.
Asthana, serving as the Director-General of Border Security Force, was appointed the Commissioner on July 27, four days before his superannuation on July 31.
The plea was filed by one Sadre Alam through Advocate BS Bagga, along with an intervention application by an NGO, which has challenged the appointment before the Supreme Court.
Alam sought quashing of the July 27 order of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) appointing Asthana as the Delhi Police Commissioner while granting him inter-cadre deputation and extension of service by one year.
It said that he has filed the petition in public interest invoking the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
READ:No irregularity, illegality in appointment Rakesh Asthana as Police Commissioner: HC
The petition also sought further direction to initiate fresh steps for appointing the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, strictly in accordance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court of India.
The petitioner said that the IPS officer was due to retire on his superannuation that is July 31, 2021, but was granted an inter-cadre transfer I deputation to Respondent No.2 from his parent cadre of Gujarat to the AGMUT cadre (cadre for Arunachal Pradesh, Goa Mizoram other Union Territories including Delhi).
"Because impugned orders violate a number of statutory rules and violate the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Prakash Singh vs Union of India regarding the eligibility, procedure for appointment and tenure of police chiefs," the petition said.
"Because the post of Commissioner of Police in Delhi is akin to the post of Director General of Police (DGP) of a State and he is the head of police force for the NCT of Delhi and therefore, the directions concerning the appointment to the post of DGP passed by the Supreme Court of India in Prakash Singh case (supra) had to be followed by the central government while making the impugned appointment," it added.
