By Our Correspondent
BHUBANESWAR: During the Odisha DGP appointment hearing on Tuesday, the Supreme Court expressed its displeasure on State Government in the manner which it acted to change the poll of consideration violating Court orders.
Justice JM Bagchi was drawing a clear line responding to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and said that the guidelines do not give every state a free hand to mix Level-16 and Level-15 names as a matter of course (the position SG Tushar Mehta had been advancing).Expansion beyond the pure Level-16 list is permitted only when the primary pool is too small to produce a three-member panel.
Odisha, which originally had three (or more) Level-16 officers, cannot rely on the “small-state shortfall” logic to justify later adding or promoting Level-15 officers into the zone after the process had already started.
In short, the judge is saying: send everyone who already qualifies under 2A; expand only when you truly lack enough Level-16 officers to form a three-name zone. Anything broader would rewrite the sequential structure of Clauses 2A and 2B.
Justice Bagchi’s remarks clarify how the UPSC guidelines on the “zone of consideration” for DGP selection are meant to work in practice. They distinguish the normal rule from limited exceptions, especially for states with a small pool of eligible officers.
Normal rule under Clause 2A, If a state has more than three officers already in Level 16 (i.e., holding DGP or equivalent posts in the pay matrix), it must send all of those Level-16 officers under the primary zone (2A). The state cannot selectively withhold some of them or jump straight to juniors. The UPSC Empanelment Committee then shortlists a panel of not more than three from that list on the basis of seniority, service record, and suitability.
The problem of very small cadres-Some states (especially smaller ones) may have only two officers in Level 16 at the time of the vacancy (one regular DGP + one in an equivalent ex-cadre post).In that situation the guidelines still require the UPSC to be able to recommend a panel of up to three officers. A two-name list would leave the process incomplete.
Limited, justified expansion under 2B-Only in such a genuine shortfall can the state add one Level-15 (ADG-rank) officer to make up a minimum zone of three.
The state must be able to justify it on the ground that “we simply do not have any more Level-16 officers.”This is an exceptional, necessity-driven step, not a routine power to enlarge the pool whenever the government prefers a wider choice.
Justice Bagchi is telling the UPSC that the Telangana precedent cannot be mechanically applied to Odisha because the two situations are fundamentally different.
What the Telangana situation was- The last regular DGP in Telangana was appointed around 2015–2017 and retired in November 2017.
For the next seven to nine years, the state sent no proposal at all to the UPSC for a regular DGP appointment.
It continued with a series of “Acting” or ad-hoc DGPs, in clear disregard of the Supreme Court’s 2006 Prakash Singh directions (which require a regular DGP selected from a UPSC-empanelled panel of three senior-most eligible officers, with a fixed minimum tenure).
When the matter finally reached the Supreme Court (early 2026), the Court had to mould the relief — i.e., fashion a practical, case-specific order — because the normal process had completely broken down due to prolonged non-compliance. The Court directed the UPSC to convene an empanelment meeting quickly and make recommendations so that a regular DGP could finally be appointed.
What Justice Bagchi is saying about Odisha-Odisha is not a case of total inaction or multi-year vacuum.Here the state has initiated the process, sent proposals (initially three names, later an expanded list), and is actively engaging with the UPSC. The dispute is about how the zone of consideration was handled, the withdrawal of an integrity certificate, and subsequent promotions — not about a complete failure to appoint a regular DGP for years.
Therefore, the extraordinary, remedial approach the Court was forced to take in Telangana (moulding relief because the system had collapsed) has no parallel application to Odisha. The normal guidelines and sequential process under the UPSC rules (Clauses 2A/2B, Level-16 priority, etc.) must be applied on their own terms.
In short: Telangana was an exceptional case of prolonged default that required the Court to fashion a special solution. Odisha is an ongoing selection process that must be judged against the ordinary rules, not against that special, moulded relief.
Justice Bagchi is explaining the proper procedure under the three-month rule and contrasting it with what actually happened in the Odisha case.Core meaning of the remarks. The three-month rule
Under the Supreme Court’s directions (and the UPSC guidelines that incorporate them), a state must send its list of eligible officers to the UPSC at least three months before the incumbent DGP’s retirement.Once that list is sent, the process is expected to proceed on the basis of the officers who were eligible at that time. The state is not supposed to keep sending “supplementary lists” as a routine matter.
Exception for genuine mid-process changes-The Chief Justice had indicated that there can be a rare, unique situation: after the original list is sent, two officers get promoted and thereby become eligible (Level 16) before the UPSC selection is completed.
In such a case the State itself must approach the Supreme Court, explain the change, and seek permission or directions. The Court can then decide whether the newly promoted officers can be included.
What the Court does not find in Odisha-Justice Bagchi notes that Odisha did not follow that disciplined route.Instead, the issue of mid-process promotions / expansion of the zone, and the withdrawal of the integrity certificate of senior IPS officer Sushant/Susanta Kumar Nath, has come before the Court through: an application filed by an intervener, and
at the instance of the person whose integrity certificate (the transcript says “disability certificate,” but in context it is clearly the integrity certificate) was withdrawn.
In short: the proper way is for the State to come to the Court if eligibility changes after the three-month list is sent. What the Bench sees here is the opposite — the matter is being driven by an intervener and by the officer whose integrity certificate was withdrawn, rather than by a clean application from the State seeking clarification on the promotions.
Justice Bagchi is pointing out the correct procedural route the State should have followed, while SG Tushar Mehta is defending the State’s actual actions.
What Justice Bagchi is saying-Under Clause 5(xii) of the UPSC guidelines (which deals with situations of delay or change in the process), the State should have returned to the Supreme Court and made a formal, transparent request roughly like this:
“We earlier sent only three names. Meanwhile we have received a letter from the CBI (regarding the integrity of one officer). In the meantime two officers have also been promoted from Level 15 to Level 16. Therefore we need your directions on how to proceed.”
In other words, the Court is telling the State: if the original list needed to be altered because of new developments (CBI communication + mid-process promotions), the proper way was to come back to the Supreme Court under the specific clause meant for such contingencies, rather than unilaterally expanding or revising the list.
What SG Tushar Mehta is responding-Mehta acknowledges the point and then advances the State’s justification on the promotions:The Central Government (Ministry of Home Affairs) had given permission to promote two officers from Level 15 (ADG) to Level 16 (DGP rank).Those two officers would have been in Level 16 as on the date the vacancy occurred (the retirement of the previous DGP).
