Odisha DGP selection Process Hearing in Supreme Court: Read details of Submissions of the Amicus Curiae Raju Ramachandran

September 8, 2026

By Our Correspondent

BHUBANESWAR: Odisha DGP selection Process Hearing in Supreme Court: Read details of Submissions of the Amicus Curiae Raju Ramachandran dated September 7. WP(C) No.310 of 1996 in matter of Prakash Singh & Others Versus Union of India & Others.

Reference may be made to the previous judgments of this Hon’ble Court in the present writ petition, as follows.

1) Prakash Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2006) 8 SCC 1 – referred to as “Prakash Singh-I”

2) Prakash Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2019) 4 SCC 13 – referred to as “Prakash Singh-II”

3) Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2019) 4 SCC 1 – referred to as “Prakash Singh-III”

The present Note deals with the issues relating to the appointment of the DGP (HoPF) in the State of Odisha, as raised in the following I.A.s and connected documents filed before this Hon’ble Court in WP(C) No.310/1996.

The facts of the present case are that:

3.1. The DGP (HoPF) of Odisha was due to retire on 16.08.2026 and has in fact retired as of that date.

3.2. That the State of Odisha sent a proposal for the appointment of the

DGP to the UPSC on 14.05.2026, in terms of paragraph 6.1 of Prakash

Singh-II (three months prior to the vacancy arising). The State has

attached, under the title “A list of officers who meet the eligibility

conditions”, the names of 11 officers of whom three (at serial numbers

1-3) were at the rank of DGP at Level-16 and the remaining eight

officers (at serial numbers 4-11) were at the rank of Additional DGP at

Level-15. The proposal further asks the UPSC to convene a meeting of

the Empanelment Committee and furnish the panel for appointment by

the State Govt. Proposal dated 14.05.2026 is at pages 29-33, UPSC

Affidavit.

3.3. It may be noted that as per the UPSC’s Guidelines for Empanelment (as

amended on 08.01.2026, attached with the UPSC Affidavit at pages 15

19), the “normal zone of consideration” for appointment as DGP

(HoPF) “shall consist of officers who are holding the post of Director

General of Police (DGP) in the State cadre in Level-16 of the Pay matrix

as on date of occurrence of vacancy.” It is only when “no eligible officer

3 of Level-16 is available for consideration” that the zone is expanded to

all officers at the ADG rank at Level-15. Guidelines paragraph 2 at page

15, UPSC Affidavit.

3.4. Thereafter on 21.07.2026 the UPSC scheduled a meeting of the

Empanelment Committee to be held on 07.08.2026. Letter at page 32,

UPSC Affidavit.

Withholding of the Integrity Certificate and request to postpone the

Empanelment process

3.5. On 05.08.2026, the State Govt. addressed a letter to the UPSC stating

that it had “revisited the integrity certificate issued earlier” and enclosing

revised integrity certificates as well as certain reports received from the

State Home Department and the CBI which led to the “revisiting”.

Letter at page 33, UPSC Affidavit. The attached documents indicate that

the integrity certificate of Shri Susanta Kumar Nath, who was at serial

number 2 of the Proposal, has been withheld. Certificate at page 34,

UPSC Affidavit. The reasons for the said withholding are stated as

follows at page 35: “As per the information received from the CBI Vigilance Cell,

New Delhi vide their letter No. CBI ID No. 30/2022-VC

(CVC)/Misc./1199 dated 04.08.2026, Shri Susanta Kumar Nath,

IPS (RR:1993) was the chairman of the Odisha Police Recruitment

Board (OPRB) which was conducting the examination for

recruitment of SI of police and equivalent ranks scheduled to be

held on 5th and 6th of October 2025. The entire process of

examination is under investigation by the CBI including the role of

examination conducting agencies, OPRB and others. Keeping in

view of the fact that Shri Susanta Kumar Nath, IPS was working as

chairman of OPRB i.e. the examination conducting agency, the

integrity is not certified.”

3.6. Reliance was placed on a Status Report dated 04.08.2026 sent by the

CBI to the State Govt. in response to a letter of the State Govt. dated

03.08.2026. The Report states that in the investigation into the

recruitment examination, approval under Section 17A of the Prevention

of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) for inquiry/ investigation into a

private entity, M/s ITI Ltd. had not yet been granted. The Report

further states that Shri Susanta Kumar Nath “may be required to be

examined by the CBI” after approval is granted, if at all. This Status

Report indicates that as of this date, there was no pending criminal

investigation against Shri Susanta Kumar Nath and there was no request

from the CBI to examine him. CBI Status Report dated 04.08.2026 at

page 37, UPSC Affidavit.

3.7. It further appears that the CBI Status Report was produced in response

to a Letter dated 03.08.2026 from the Govt. of Odisha to the CBI by

which the State requested the CBI to inform it about “the current status

of investigation in the case under reference and whether the role of Shri

Susanta Kumar Nath, IPS (RR-1993) is presently under investigation,

whether he has been examined, or has been named in connection with

the SI Recruitment Examination paper leak case being investigated by

CBI.” Letter dated 03.08.2026 in the Additional Affidavit of the

Applicant filed on 06.09.2026.

3.8. On 05.08.2026, the Govt. of Odisha, Home Dept. reproduced the

contents of the CBI’s Status Report dated 04.08.2026 in a letter to the

GA & PG Dept. Letter dated 05.08.2026 at page 36, UPSC Affidavit.

3.9. On 07.08.2026, the State Govt. requested the UPSC to postpone the

Empanelment Committee Meeting scheduled for the very same day

“due to certain developments.” No other reason is mentioned in this

letter. Postponement letter at page 38, UPSC Affidavit.

Creation of ex-cadre posts to promote two officers to DGP-rank, i.e.

bringing them into the zone of consideration, and request to resume

the Empanelment process

3.10. The State Govt. on 10.08.2026 promoted Shri Sanjeeb Panda and Shri

Yeshwant Kumar Jethwa from ADGP-rank to DGP-rank in Level-16 by

Notification dated 10.08.2026. The Notification is issued purportedly in

pursuance of Rule 3 of the IPS (Pay) Rules, 2016 and orders the

promotion “with immediate effect” and the officers to be posted “in

situ”. Notification dated 10.08.2026 at page 7, I.A. No. 244287/2026.

3.11. Simultaneously, on 10.08.2026, the State Govt. informed the UPSC of

the promotions granted to Shri Sanjeeb Panda and Shri Yeshwant

Kumar Jethwa, and that:

“In view of these updates, a revised and updated Eligibility List of

eligible IPS officers, duly reflecting the promoted rank of the

officers, is enclosed herewith for the record and necessary action of

the Commission. It may be noted that other details regarding the

officers in the list such as biodata & experience details have been

submitted earlier. Further, the revision in the integrity certificate in

respect of Shri Susanta Kumar Nath, IPS (RR-1993), wherein the

integrity has been withheld has already been submitted vide this

Department letter No. 24959/AIS.I dated 05.08.2026, which may

be taken into consideration by the Empanelment Committee.”

Letter dated 10.08.2026 from the Govt. of Odisha to UPSC at pages 39

40 and updated List of Officers at pages 41-42, UPSC Affidavit.

3.12. The UPSC had scheduled a meeting of the Empanelment Committee to

be held on 13.08.2026. However, on the same date, the present Petition

was listed before this Hon’ble Court and by Order dated 13.08.2026, it

was recorded that the meeting would not be convened. The UPSC

accordingly postponed the meeting. Letter dated 13.08.2026 at page 43,

UPSC Affidavit.

3.13. With respect to the creation of ex-cadre posts, it appears that:

3.13.1.

The Govt. of India (MHA) had previously declined to accord

concurrence for creation of 2 ex-cadre posts at the DGP-level

on 09.02.2026 for clear and cogent reasons. The letter dated

09.02.2026 at page 6 of the Additional Affidavit filed by the

Applicant states:

“… Odisha Cadre of IPS has been sanctioned with 02

posts at DG level. Therefore, the State Govt. can

operate a total 04 posts (02 SDP + 02 SDR) at the DG

level. However, State Government is operating 05 posts

at DG level (02 SDP + 03 SDR).

As such, at present, there is no vacancy at DG

level post. Since, there is no vacancy at DG level in

the Odisha Cadre, therefore, request to accord

concurrence for creation of 02 temporary ex-cadre

posts and 01 existing temporary ex-cadre post in the

Grade of DG (Level 16) to facilitate promotion of the

02 officers of 1994 batches IPS officers cannot be

acceded.

However, as intimated by State Government vide

aforesaid letter that 02 vacancies will be created at DG

level in the 2026 due to retirement of 02 officers,

therefore, concurrence of the Central Governrnent in

terms of Rule 3(2)(ii) of IPS (Pay) Rules, 2016 in respect

of Odisha Cadre of IPS for filling up the 02 vacancies at

DG level for the year 2026 is being conveyed with effect

from the retirement of 02 officers.” (Emphasis

supplied.)

3.13.2.

3.13.3.

Notwithstanding this denial, the State Govt. on 08.08.2026

again requested the MHA to give its concurrence for the

creation of two temporary ex-cadre posts at the DGP-rank

for the reason that the said officers “have already completed

32 years of service and are eligible for promotion to the

grade of DG of police in Level-16.” (Emphasis supplied.)

Letter dated 08.08.2026 at page 6, I.A. No. 244287/2026.

Thereafter on 09.08.2026, the MHA approved the creation of

2 temporary ex-cadre posts at the DGP-rank at Level-16 with

immediate effect until the date on which the DGP vacancies

would normally arise, i.e. 16.08.2026 and 30.11.2026. There is

no reason stated in this letter, and no reference is made to the

Letter dated 09.02.2026 where the same concurrence was

denied. MHA Letter dated 09.08.2026 at page 7 of the

Additional Affidavit filed by the Applicant.

Submission of the Amicus Curiae on Issue (1) The creation of ex-cadre

posts at the DGP-rank at Level-16 in order to ensure eligibility of two

officers for appointment to the post of DGP (HoPF)

4.1. The creation of ex-cadre posts at the DGP-rank has been done with the

concurrence of the Central Government. However, the manner in which

this has been done raises some concern that it was an attempt to make

an ordinarily ineligible officer eligible for appointment to the post of

DGP (HoPF).

4.2. The MHA had denied concurrence for the creation of the two

temporary ex-cadre posts in February 2026. This denial was supported

by reasons related to the existing sanctioned posts for DGP in the state.

Thereafter, the change in the MHA’s stand on DGP-level officers is

unsupported by any reasons or reference to any need for the posts to be

created. If at all, the only change in circumstances would favour denying

concurrence since on the date of the State Govt.’s request (08.08.2026),

one of the vacancies would arise in merely nine days i.e. on 17.08.2026

with the retirement of the then-incumbent DGP. There is nothing in

either the State Govt.’s request or the MHA’s concurrence to show the

pressing and urgent need to create a temporary ex-cadre post for about

one week. The only impact is on the zone of consideration for

appointment to the post of DGP (HoPF).

4.3. Amicus Suggestion on the correctness of the Updated Eligibility

List dated 10.08.2026: In light of the inconsistency in the stand of the

MHA and lack of clear reasons for bringing two officers into the Zone

of Consideration after submission of an initial proposal, it is submitted

that in order to avoid any outcome which is due to manipulation of the

eligibility list, the Empanelment Committee should consider only the

Original Eligibility List submitted on 14.05.2026 and not the Updated

List dated 10.08.2026 reflecting the promotions made on 10.08.2026.

4.4. Apparent Discrepancy between the State Letter dated 08.08.2026

and the Eligibility List dated 10.08.2026.

4.5. It may further be noted that in the details of the 14.05.2026 List of

Eligible Officers, Shri Sanjeeb Panda at serial number 4 is stated to have

been appointed on 03.09.1995 and has served 30 years, 11 months and

14 days in service as on 16.08.2026. List at page 30, UPSC Affidavit.

This is also stated in the Updated List dated 10.08.2026 where Shri

Sanjeeb Panda is at serial number 4 at page 41 of the UPSC Affidavit.

4.6. However, in the State Govt. letter dated 08.08.2026 requesting

concurrence for the temporary ex-cadre posts, the reason given is that

Shri Sanjeeb Panda has “already completed 32 years of service” and is

therefore entitled to be promoted. Letter dated 08.08.2026 at page 6,

I.A. No. 244287/2026.

4.7. Amicus Suggestion on the Apparent Discrepancy between the

State Letter dated 08.08.2026 and the Eligibility List dated

10.08.2026: The State of Odisha may be directed to explain the

discrepancy between its Letter dated 08.08.2026 wherein it is stated that

Shri Sanjeeb Panda has “already completed 32 years of service”, and the

Eligibility List dated 10.08.2026 wherein it is shown that the said officer

will have served for “30 years 11 months and 14 days” as on 16.08.2026.

Submission of the Amicus Curiae on Issue (2) The withholding of the

Integrity Certificate of one of the existing DGP-rank officers after

submission of the Proposal to the UPSC, in the absence of any pending

criminal investigation or inquiry against the said officer.

5.1. The State Governments are required to provide Integrity Certificates

“on the lines prescribed by GOI, MHA letter No.14/23/65-AIS (III)

dated 28.07.1966” in terms of the UPSC Guidelines, Paragraph 5(ix).

The said Letter does not form part of the UPSC Guidelines and may be

placed on record, so as to aid interpretation of the Guidelines.

5.2. A three-judge Bench of this Hon’ble Court in Union of India v. K.V.

Jankiraman (1991) 4 SCC 109 had to consider whether it was correct to

delay promotions and other benefits due to an officer (by keeping such

entitlement in “sealed cover”) when criminal proceedings were pending.

This Court held that this would result in “injustice” to the officer, as

follows:

“16. On the first question, viz., as to when for the purposes of the

sealed cover procedure the disciplinary/criminal proceedings can

be said to have commenced, the Full Bench of the Tribunal has

held that it is only when a charge-memo in a disciplinary

proceedings or a charge-sheet in a criminal prosecution is issued to

the employee that it can be said that the departmental

proceedings/criminal prosecution is initiated against the employee.

… We are in agreement with the Tribunal on this point. The

contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant

authorities that when there are serious allegations and it takes time

to collect necessary evidence to prepare and issue charge

memo/charge-sheet, it would not be in the interest of the purity of

administration to reward the employee with a promotion,

increment etc. does not impress us. The acceptance of this

contention would result in injustice to the employees in many

cases. As has been the experience so far, the preliminary

investigations take an inordinately long time and particularly

when they are initiated at the instance of the interested

persons, they are kept pending deliberately. Many times they

never result in the issue of any charge-memo/charge-sheet. If

the allegations are serious and the authorities are keen in

investigating them, ordinarily it should not take much time to

collect the relevant evidence and finalise the charges. What is

further, if the charges are that serious, the authorities have

the power to suspend the employee under the relevant rules,

and the suspension by itself permits a resort to the sealed cover

procedure. The authorities thus are not without a remedy. …

… The conclusion no. 1 should be read to mean that the

promotion etc. cannot be withheld merely because some

disciplinary/ criminal proceedings are pending against the

employee. To deny the said benefit, they must be at the

relevant time pending at the stage when charge

memo/charge-sheet has already been issued to the employee.

…” (Emphasis supplied.)

5.3. In the present case, the Status Report of the CBI dated 04.08.2026

indicates that there was no pending criminal investigation against Shri

Susanta Kumar Nath and there was no request from the CBI to examine

him, and that if at all, such request may be made after the private entity

in the case had been examined. The CBI had not even been granted the

approval sought by it to start inquiry/ investigation against the private

entity. Therefore, the filing of any charge-sheet against the officer Shri

Susanta Kumar Nath is far from imminent.

5.4. In these circumstances, it is not clear as to why the State Govt. felt it

was correct to withhold the Integrity Certificate of Shri Susanta Kumar

Nath. It does not appear that the State Govt. has taken any other

disciplinary measures against the said officer, who is being permitted to

continue in his post as DGP.

5.5. The State Govt. has addressed this issue in its Counter-Affidavit at

paragraphs 63-64 at page 21, however, there is no justification provided

for the withholding of the Integrity Certificate therein. Reference is

made to a “change in the status of an officer” but there has been no

apparent change in the status of Shri Susanta Kumar Nath between

14.05.2026 and 05.08.2026.

5.6. Amicus Suggestion on Withholding of the Integrity Certificate of

one officer: In light of the facts and circumstances, and in order to

avoid the withholding of integrity certificates becoming a practice to

bypass the rules regarding the Zone of Consideration by indirectly

removing one of the eligible officers, the State Government of Odisha

should be directed to give an affidavit to this Court stating the reasons

why it seeks to withhold the Integrity Certificate of one of the eligible

DGP level officers given the prevailing position in law and the officer’s

continuation in his post as DGP. While it is correct that the State Govt.

can withhold a certificate, the question of whether such action has been

taken for cogent reasons and based on application of mind to relevant

material can be examined by this Hon’ble Court.

Conclusion

The Amicus respectfully submits that, in order to uphold the underlying

purpose of the judgments in Prakash Singh-I, II, and III which is to avoid

arbitrariness in the appointment of the DGP (HoPF) for better and

independent functioning of the Police in every state, the following directions

may be issued.

6.1. Amicus Suggestion on the correctness of the Updated Eligibility

List dated 10.08.2026: In light of this inconsistency in the stand of