The row over the appointment of a regular DGP in Jharkhand is getting murkier. In its reply to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC)’s objection to the DGP’s panel sent by it, the Jharkhand government has said that the removal of regular DGP Ajay Kumar Singh (IPS:1989:JH) was in accordance with the rules. The government has asked the UPSC to consider the panel of IPS officers sent by it for the appointment of a regular DGP.
The Jharkhand government had removed regular DGP Ajay Kumar Singh and appointed Anurag Gupta (IPS:1990:JH) as acting DGP on July 26 this year.
In an interesting twist of events, on the instructions of the Election Commission of India, the in-charge DGP Anurag Gupta was removed and former DGP Ajay Kumar Singh was again placed in the post of DGP on the eve of Jharkhand assembly elections. But as soon as Hemant Soren took oath as Jharkhand Chief Minister again, he reversed ECI’s order and removed Ajay Kumar Singh and appointed Anurag Gupta as the acting DGP of the state.
The UPSC earlier had raised questions over the list of IPS officers sent by the Jharkhand government for the appointment of a regular DGP. The entire issue had cropped up after the state government included the name of former DGP Ajay Kumar Singh in its list of four IPS officers sent to the UPSC for shortlisting.
Ajay Kumar Singh had been appointed as a regular DGP in 2023 for a two-year term but was replaced by his junior Anurag Gupta as an acting DGP before the expiry of his tenure.
Now, the UPSC had issued notice to the state government asking for explanation as to under which circumstances Ajay Kumar Singh was replaced mid way by an acting DGP. The UPSC also raised the issue as to why the Supreme Court’s directive issued in the Prakash Singh vs the Union of India case of 2006 was not implemented. The apex court had ruled that a state government must appoint a DGP for a fixed two-year term.
Interestingly, the Jharkhand government is already facing contempt charges for the same reason in the Supreme Court. The contempt petition says that Gupta was appointed on an ad-hoc basis in contravention of the apex court judgment which laid down procedures for the appointment of the DGPs in States. It was this case that opened a Pandora box with the apex court issuing notices to eight states for preferring to have acting DGPs instead of appointing the regular ones.
