Suspense over permanent DGP even after new rules framed by UP government
The possibility of making acting DGP Prashant Kumar the permanent is fading with only two days left for the state government to consider his name as he will not be eligible at the end of November
The suspense over posting a permanent director general of police (DGP) continues even after the state government formulated a set of new rules for the appointment of permanent head of the UP police on November 5.
The acting DGP Prashant Kumar was likely to get the permanent post for two years considering his proximity with the state government after the formulation of the new rule. But only two days remain for the state government to consider his name as he will be ineligible for the permanent post from December 1 as per the new rules formulated by the state government. Moreover, no committee has been constituted so far for the appointment of a permanent DGP, an official confirmed.
As per the new rules, a committee headed by a retired judge of the high court has to finalize the appointment to the post in consultation with other members comprising the chief secretary, a person nominated by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), the chairman or nominee of the UP Public Service Commission, the 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 considered for the coveted post who have minimum six months of service left. He said the current acting DGP could not be considered after November as he is due to retire in May 2025.
If it is presumed that Prashant Kumar continues as the acting DGP till his retirement in May 2025, then only 13 director general (DG) rank officers will be in the race for selection as the permanent DGP for two years.
“Prior to the formulation of the new rules, the state government used to send the list of the senior-most IPS officers (with minimum service period of six months left) to the Union home ministry. The ministry, with the opinion of different stakeholders, including the Union Public Service Commission chairman, (used) to further decide the names of three officers, in accordance with norms, for appointment of a new DGP out of three,” a senior government official explained. “This way, the Union home ministry used to have a major stake in appointment of DGPs.”
Alleged differences arose with the Union home ministry after the Uttar Pradesh government removed 1987-batch IPS officer Mukul Goel from the DGP post on May 11, 2022, much before his superannuation in February 2024, following allegations of inaction and lack of interest in work. Since then, the state government has posted four consecutive acting DGPs, rather than sending a proposal to the Union home ministry.
Another official said the UP government formulated 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 that the new rules stated that the DGP’s tenure in UP will be of a minimum two years. He said the officer to be considered for the post should have a minimum six months of service left. If the remaining service period of the eligible candidate is only six months after appointment, then the service period can be extended up to another 1.5 years. He said the rules read that IPS officers working on the post of DG at level 16 of the pay matrix could be considered for the state police chief.
He said there is a catch in posting Prashant Kumar as permanent DGP for at least two years as he would require around 1.5 years of service extension, which would still have to be cleared by the Union home ministry. So, to cross this hurdle, the state government may prefer appointing such IPS officers as DGP, who already have two years of service period left and require no extension.
Former UP DGP Prakash Singh, who retired in January 1996, had earlier said the new rules seem to be an apparent move to bring back authority to the state for appointment of the coveted post and dilute the role of UPSC. He said although the new rule is apparently formulated in compliance with the landmark verdict of Public Interest Litigation in 2006, in which the Supreme Court issued specific directions to central and state governments in the matter, but it is up to the apex court to review the new rule to ensure whether all points mentioned in the previously issued directions are followed by the state government.