Read Time: 07 minutes

The Delhi High Court on Thursday adjourned till September 27, plea challenging appointment of Rakesh Asthana as Commissioner of Police, Delhi after Counsel for the Petitioner on Court's enquiry sought time to answer as to what does the term "Supertime scale" means in Service Jurisprudence.

The Division bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh was hearing a plea by one Sadre Alam represented  by Advocate BS Bagga.

The Court had earlier allowed the  intervention application of Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) alleging that the main petition is a copy paste of CPIL’s plea in the Supreme Court.

During the Course of hearing today, Advocate BS Bagga appearing for the petitioner informed the Court that affidavit had been filed by the Centre and Asthana, howevever there were certain issues he wished to address before the Court.

Reading provisions of Service Rules where extension of service can be granted, Bagga submitted that Asthana did not fall under any of the category of the said rules.

While Bagga was reading the provisions, Chief Justice DN Patel stopped the Counsel midway and said

"You have copied all this from your senior Counsel waiting in queue.... Copy Karo toh 5 percent honi chahiye, sab copy nai kar sakte".

Bagga however, denied the said allegations and continued reading provisions on inter cadre deputation.

At this the bench questioned Bagga- "What is super time scale?"

Advocate Prashant Bhushan replied its for 60 years.

The Court however asked Bhushan not to answer and said, "Let him answer, he has copied from you".

The Court also warned Bagga that it would dismiss the petition with costs.

Bagga sought time to address the Court on the said term.

Accordingly, the Court listed the matter for next hearing on September 27.

The petition has sought quashing of the order/communication dated Jul 27 of the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) granting inter-cadre deputation and extension of service to Asthana.

Filed through Adv. BS Bagga, the petition said that the impugned orders are in clear and blatant breach of the directions passed by the Supreme Court of India in Prakash Singh case as Asthana did not have a minimum residual tenure of six months at the time of his appointment as Commissioner of Police since he was to retire within 4 days. 

Further, no Union Public Services Commission (UPSC) panel was formed for the appointment of the Delhi Police Commissioner and the criteria of having a minimum tenure of two years had been ignored, it alleged.

The petitioner had submitted that “the post of Commissioner of Police in Delhi is akin to the post of 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Prakash Singh case (supra) had to be followed by the Central Government while making the impugned appointment. However, the same have been given a complete go-by the Central Government”.

The petition thus sought a direction to the Union Government to initiate fresh steps for appointing the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, strictly in accordance with the directions issued by the  Supreme Court of India in the Prakash Singh case viz., (2006) 8 SCC 1,(2019) 4 SCC 13and (2019) 4 SCC 1 of an officer of the AGMUT cadre.

Case Title: Sadre Alam vs UOI