The Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) has updated its guidelines for the selection of state director-general of police (DGPs). According to these amendments issued last month, only police officers with at least six months left before retirement will be eligible for consideration for the position. Moreover, IPS officers on central deputation will not be assessed for a state DGP’s role if the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) informs the state government that they cannot be relieved.
These changes were made to clarify existing unwritten norms and discourage states from appointing DGPs on the brink of retirement or using acting DGPs to bypass the UPSC process and extend their tenure, as some states, including BJP-ruled states, have done. Sources say that states such as Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana have all appointed “in-charge” DGPs or DGPs with “full additional charge”. For instance, Uttar Pradesh has not had a full-time DGP since 2022.
Notably, former Punjab DGP V.K. Bhawra has gone to court against the appointment of Gaurav Yadav as acting DGP by the Aam Aadmi Party government of Bhagwant Mann. Mr Bhawra’s transfer in the middle of his term, despite UPSC rules stipulating a fixed two-year tenure for a state DGP, prompted this challenge. Earlier this year in June, Punjab passed legislation to independently appoint the state DGP. However, the Punjab Police (Amendment) Bill, 2023, is still pending the Governor’s assent to become law.
Interestingly, in 2021, the Centre had proposed to amend the IAS cadre rules to depute IAS, IPS and IFS officers to the Centre without necessarily taking the state government’s nod. At the time there were massive protests from the states, and the proposal was shelved. Wonder how the states will take to these new guidelines.
A puzzling U-turn on appraisal system
In a startling reversal, the Modi Sarkar has disavowed its own 360-degree appraisal system for senior civil servants, specifically for those at the level of joint secretary and above. This abrupt change in stance, now asserting that “no such system exists in the Government of India”, raises some troubling questions about the Modi Sarkar’s accountability and its commitment to a transparent and merit-based selection process.
At the time it was introduced in 2015, the government had gone to great lengths to extol the virtues of the 360-degree appraisal system. It stated that the new system was a comprehensive response to the shortcomings of the previous process, which fell short of capturing the “essential” qualities of integrity and capability during the evaluation. In fact, the Delhi High Court upheld the new system in 2017, underscoring its legitimacy.
So, why this volte-face? The government’s new-found denial of the system is a puzzling and concerning development and will be seen as signifying a lack of consistency and a willingness to change fundamental procedures without clear rationale. Why would the department of personnel and training (DoPT) file such an affidavit before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) circuit bench?
Sources have informed DKB that this was done in response to a petition filed by Indian Forest Service (IFS) officer Sanjiv Chaturvedi of the Uttarakhand cadre who approached the tribunal claiming that he was not being empanelled as a joint secretary at the Union level. To junk an entire system to snub an individual officer, who even if he has been a bugbear for the government due to his whistleblower image, definitely sounds like overkill!
Railways’ shake-up raises eyebrows
The upper echelons of the Railways underwent a transformative rearrangement. Ten senior railway officers from the Indian Railway Management Service (IRMS) have been cleared for appointment as General Manager.
What’s particularly intriguing is the reshuffling of two general managers, who held pivotal positions, into relatively low-key roles. This unexpected development has set tongues wagging within the close-knit railway circles. Rumours suggest that the roots of these decisions may perhaps be traced back to certain significant developments last month.
In a noteworthy departure from the established guidelines, S.K. Jha, previously the general manager of Northeast Frontier Railways’ Construction division, was laterally appointed as the director general of the Indian Railway Institute of Civil Engineering in Pune, displacing Ram Karan Yadav, who assumed Mr Jha’s role. A similar deviation from the norm occurred as C.V. Raman, the general manager of North Eastern Railway, was transferred to the office of the secretary to the divisional personnel officer (railway stores), railway board. This move involved a temporary upgrade of the Level 15 post to Level 16, set to last until September 30, 2025.
Sources who are close to the situation have informed DKB that the decisions might be influenced by feedback from investigative agencies and undisclosed information. These undercurrents have, therefore, cast an enigmatic veil over the possible motives behind these lateral shifts.
