Plea filed in Delhi High Court to quash appointment of Rakesh Asthana as Delhi Police Commissioner

A plea has been filed before the Delhi High Court to quash order Appointments Committee of the Cabinet appointing Rakesh Asthana as Delhi Police Commissioner of Police by granting inter-cadre deputation and extension of service (Sadre Alam v Union of India).

The plea filed by advocate Sadre Alam stated that the ACC orders were in violation of Rule 56(d) of All India Services (Death-Cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules which states that "No Government servant shall be granted extension in service beyond the age of retirement of sixty years".

It was further submitted that the orders ran contrary to the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of 'Prakash Singh' case viz., (2006) 8 SCC 1' for the following reasons:

1. Rakesh Asthana did not belong in the cadre of AGMUT (cadre for Arunachal Pradesh, Goa Mizoram other Union Territories including Delhi) at all. He had been deputed to AGMUT from Gujarat Cadre via the same order as his appointment to the post of Police Commissioner, Delhi. However, as per Prakash Singh, the empanelment has to be done by UPSC.

2. Asthana did not have a residual tenure of 6 months of service at the time of his appointment as Commissioner of Police since he was to retire within 4 days.

3. Asthana has been appointed for a period of one year till his date of superannuation even though Prakash Singh provides for a minimum 2 years tenure irrespective of the date of superannuation

The plea further said that Central government does not have the power under Rule 3 of All India Services (Conditions of Service-Residuary Matters) Rules, 1960 to relax Rule 16(1) of the All India Services (Death-Cum-Retirement Benefit~) Rules, 1958 to give extension of service to Rakesh Asthana, the plea said.

It was also submitted that the ACC orders also violated the policy regarding Inter-Cadre deputation of All India Service Officers as prescribed under Department of Personnel and Training Office Memorandum, dated November 8, 2004.

Besides, the plea also pointed out that the High-Powered Committee comprising the Chief Justice of India, Prime Minister and the Leader of Opposition in its May 24 meeting had rejected the Central government's proposal to appoint Asthana as CBI Director on the basis of the "six-month rule" as laid down in Prakash Singh.

"The appointment of Respondent No. 2 to the post of Commissioner of Police, Delhi must be set aside on the same principle," the plea stated.