New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday sought clarification from the Ministry of Home Affairs on whether an IPS officer’s concurrence on central deputation is necessary before he is appointed as the DGP of a state.
A bench headed by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud said that the MHA should file an affidavit within one week indicating whether the concurrence of an officer is necessary for appointment as the DGP even when he is on central deputation.
The bench, also comprising Justice P.S. Narasimha, further added that if concurrence is required, the relevant rules should be specified.
Counsel, representing the Nagaland government, submitted that consent of officers is taken for overseas deployment and not for posting in the state cadre.
During the hearing, the top court was informed that the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) had, on December 15 last year, forwarded a communication by which just one name was recommended for the post of the DGP.
It also asked the Home Ministry to bring on record the communication, where it concurred with the UPSC communication. The UPSC had suggested relaxing the experience criteria for appointment as Nagaland DGP from 30 years to 25 years.
The court noted that IPS officer Rupin Sharma was given the charge of the DGP and name of another IPS officer Sunil Achaya, a Nagaland cadre IPS officer who is on central deputation, could not be forwarded as he was unwilling to join the state cadre.
It asked the UPSC to file an affidavit on steps taken in connection with December communication.
The bench was hearing a plea by Nagaland Law Students Federation seeking a direction to recall the order granting extension to Nagaland DGP T.J. Longkumer, a 1991 batch IPS officer, after his superannuation.
Longkumer resigned earlier this month.
Follow on Twitter | Posted by Mansoor Hameed | 
