Tension over permanent DGP even after new rules are framed by UP government

Tension over the appointment of a permanent Director General of Police (DGP) continues even after the state government on November 5 formulated a set of new rules for the appointment of the permanent chief of UP police.

Acting DGP Prashant Kumar was likely to get the permanent post for two years considering his closeness to the state government after the formulation of the new rule. But the state government has only two days left to consider his name as he will not be eligible for the permanent post from December 1 as per the new rules framed by the state government. Moreover, no committee has been formed so far for the appointment of a permanent DGP, an official confirmed.

As per the new rules, a committee headed by a retired Supreme Court judge has to finalize the appointment to the post in consultation with other members including the chief secretary, a person nominated by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), the chairman or nominee of the UP Public Service Commission, Additional Chief Secretary (Home) and a retired DGP. The official further said that the new rules stated that only those senior IPS officers will be eligible for the coveted post who have completed at least six months of service. He said the current acting DGP cannot be considered after November as he is due to retire in May 2025.

If Prashant Kumar is assumed to remain the acting DGP till his retirement in May 2025, only 13 director general (DG) rank officers will be in the race to be selected as the permanent DGP for two years.

“Prior to the formulation of the new rules, the state government sent the list of top IPS officers (with a minimum service period of six months remaining) to the Union Home Ministry. The ministry, with the views of various stakeholders including the Chairman of the Union Public Service Commission, has (used) to further decide on the names of three officers, in accordance with the norms, for the appointment of a new DGP from among three ,” said a senior government official. explained. “In this way, the Union Home Ministry used to have a major interest in the appointment of DGPs.”

Alleged differences with the Union Home Ministry emerged after the Uttar Pradesh government removed 1987 batch IPS officer Mukul Goel from the DGP post on May 11, 2022, much before his retirement in February 2024, following allegations of inaction and lack of interest in work. Since then, the state government has posted four consecutive acting DGPs, instead of sending a proposal to the Union Home Ministry.

Another official said the UP government has framed a new set of rules to appoint the state police chief to dilute the role of the Union Home Ministry in posting a DGP of its own choice. He said the new rules stipulate that the tenure of the DGP in UP will be a minimum of two years. He said the officer to be considered for the post must have completed at least six months of service. If the remaining service period of the eligible candidate is only six months after appointment, the service period may be extended for an additional 1.5 years. He said the rules state that IPS officers working on the post of DG at level 16 of the pay matrix could be considered for the post of chief of state police.

He said there is a catch in posting Prashant Kumar as permanent DGP for at least two years as he would need about 1.5 years of extension in service, which is yet to be approved by the Union Home Ministry Union. So, to overcome this hurdle, the state government may prefer to appoint such IPS officers as DGP, who have completed two more years of service and do not require any extension.

Former UP DGP Prakash Singh, who retired in January 1996, had earlier said that the new rules appear to be an apparent move to bring back the authority for appointment of the coveted post to the state and dilute the role of UPSC . He said that while the new rule has apparently been formulated in accordance with the landmark judgment of Public Interest Litigation of 2006, in which the Supreme Court gave specific directions to central and state governments in the matter, it is for the apex court to review the matter. new rule to ensure that all the points mentioned in the directions issued earlier are followed by the state government.