The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Monday converted a public interest in litigation (PIL), which challenges the construction of IPS posts in Haryana Police, allegedly in violation of cadre power rules. The court also appointed the petitioner’s counsel, Advocate Pardeep Solath as Meenus Curia, so that the matter could be assisted and directed the Center to present his stand.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjeev Berry originally passed the order in a petition filed by Aarti. His petition had questioned the state’s decision to post IPS officers on the posts of East-cadre for more than 19 approved under the Indian Police Service (Cadre Strength of Cadre Strength) Amendment Regulation, 2017.
After the petitioner’s death, the court noticed that the issue related to public interest and directed that the matter should be considered as a gene. The central government was given time to obtain instructions, and now the case will be heard on August 28.
The petition was filed in 2023, after March 1, 2023, the news report published by the Indian Express, which asked the Haryana government, a ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) letter, whether he had received the Center approval before making 23 pre-cakes IPS posts-more than the most than 19 permits.
According to the petition, Haryana Police had made 22 east-cadre posts for IPS officers, 14 to the post of Director General of Police (DGP) (DGP) and at eight Additional Director General of Police (ADGP) level, 2017 cadre strength notification and violation of IPS cadre, 1954.
The petitioner said that under Rule 8 of the IPS cadre rules, the cadre post should be filled by the cadre authorities and no officer can place a pre-cadre post beyond the authorized number without prior approval of the Center. He claimed that Haryana had neither received such approval nor followed the mandatory process from the State Finance Department to create a pre-cadre post including financial withdrawal.
The petition further alleged that several cadre posts remained vacant, while the officers were being appointed to the posts of East-cadre in the direct violation of Rule 10 of IPS cadre rules, which makes the cadre posts to keep the posts of the cadre vacant from six months without the node of the center.
The story continues below this advertisement
In its reply, the Haryana government had dismissed the petition on the basis of the texture, arguing that the Service Affairs about All India Service Officers fall under the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) under the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985.
The state had presented that most of the nominees nominated in the petition did not place the posts challenged as the time of filing, with some retired. Thus, the petition was damaged.
This defended the posting by implementing Rule 4 (2) of the IPS cadre rules, which allows temporary appointments for operational boycott without prior approval from the Center. The state also informed the court that an amendment to the cadre’s strength was already in the process.
,
