MUMBAI: Following the Bombay High Court's order quashing extension granted to former Director General of Police P S Pasricha, a fresh PIL has challenged the appointment of his successor A N Roy.
R R Tripathi-- who was also a petitioner in the case against Pasricha -- contends that Roy, a former Mumbai police Commissioner, is the junior-most among the DG level officers.
Bombay High Court, in an earlier decision, had laid down that appointment to higher posts in police must be on the basis of seniority, the PIL says.
It is likely to come up for hearing on April 2.
There are two DG level posts in Maharashtra: Director General of Police, and Director General- Anti-corruption.
In 2003, government issued a notification, creating two additional posts of DG: DG-Housing and DG-Home Guard. Roy was DG-Housing before he was made DGP this month.
Tripathi says that these two additional posts of DG were not recognised by UPSC and government was supposed to take its permission within a stipulated period, which it did not obtain.
Therefore, of the four DG posts in the state, two are illegal, according to Tripathi.
When S S Virk -- a DG level officer from state cadre -- was repatriated to the state, the number of DGs went to five.
Tiwari's contention is that when Virk came back from Punjab, Roy should have been stripped of DG rank and when it came to succeeding Pasricha, senior most officer should have been the choice.
Virk was not made the DGP because of corruption charges he faced during his stint as Punjab DGP. But J D Virkar (DG Anti-corruption) or S Chakravarti (DG-Home Guard) could have been the contenders for the post because they are senior to Roy, Tripathi says.
For the last two decades, seniority has been the foremost criterion in the appointment of DGP, but exception was made in Roy's case, he alleges.
The PIL also takes exception to appointment of 14 DCPs in the state who do not belong to Indian Police Service.
