The Delhi High Court has deferred its hearing on the plea challenging the appointment of Gujarat-cadre IPS officer Rakesh Asthana as the Delhi Police Commissioner to September 27.
The development came after the Division Bench of Chief Justice D.N. Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh inquired about the meaning of a term used in context of service jurisprudence in the petition, which Advocate B.S. Bagga, representing the petitioner Sadre Alam, was unable to explain and thereby sought time to apprise the court on the meaning of the term.
The Bench, while adjourning the matter, noted thus:
“Counsel appearing for the petitioner had argued out the case today and started with an argument about inter-cadre transfer in which he has simply read over the paragraphs without explaining anything. When the words came “Super Time Scale”, we asked a question to verify whether petitioner can explain or not the meaning of the words ‘Super Time Scale’ and the counsel for the petitioner is unable to explain anything what is in a service jurisprudence the meaning of words ‘Super Time Scale’.”
Arguments Raised
During the course of hearing, Bagga drew the attention of the Bench to Fundamental Rule 56(d) issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, wherein it is provided that a government servant shall not be granted extension in the service beyond the age of retirement of 60 years.
The Bench orally remarked that the instant petition is a copy of the petition filed by CPIL. “Whenever you want to file, you should file independently your own thinking, your own language. This is all borrowed language,” stated the Bench.
Bagga, however, denied the allegations and further drawn the attention of the Bench to Rules governing inter-cadre deputation wherein it is prescribed,
“Inter-cadre deputation will be available to the officer only after completion of nine years of service in his or her cadre and before reaching Super Time Scale in his or her home cadre.”
Upon this, the Bench raised in relation to meaning of the term ‘Super Time Scale’. Bagga responded in the negative and sought time to understand the meaning of the term and explain it to the Bench.
The Bench posted the matter for next hearing on September 27.
Also Read: Judges transfer case: Plea in SC challenges collegium system
The Bench had earlier allowed the intervention application moved by NGO Centre for Public Interest Litigation that has filed a petition on the same issue before the Apex Court, and sought response from the Centre and Asthana in the matter.
In light of the aforesaid, a reply was filed by the Centre as well as by Commissioner Asthana. The Central Government, in its response, stated that the appointment of Asthana has been made in public interest so as to supervise the Delhi Police force and provide effective policing post-the Northeast Delhi riots.
In a similar development, Commissioner Rakesh Asthana claimed some personal vendetta or a proxy war has been projected against him under the cloak of public interest litigations. He has contended that two organisations namely, Common Cause and Centre for Public Interest Litigation, have started a barrage of selective actions against him either out of some vendetta or at the behest of some undisclosed individual or rival or interest, either by way of consistently filing proceedings against him, or by spearheading a malicious campaign against him by way of tweets or articles.