The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Monday converted into a public interest litigation (PIL) a petition challenging the creation of IPS posts in Haryana Police allegedly in violation of cadre strength regulations. The court also appointed the petitioner’s counsel, Advocate Pardeep Solath, as amicus curiae to assist it in the matter and directed the Centre to submit its stand.
The division bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry passed the order in a plea originally filed by Aarti. Her petition had questioned the state’s decision to post IPS officers on ex-cadre positions far in excess of the 19 sanctioned under the Indian Police Service (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Amendment Regulation, 2017.
Following the petitioner’s demise, the court observed that the issue raised pertained to public interest and directed that the matter be treated as a PIL. The Union government was given time to obtain instructions, and the case will now be heard on August 28.
The petition was filed in 2023, following a March 1, 2023, news report published by The Indian Express, which had quoted a Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) letter asking the Haryana government whether it had obtained Centre’s approval before creating 23 ex-cadre IPS posts—four more than the maximum 19 permissible.
According to the plea, Haryana Police had created as many as 22 ex-cadre posts for IPS officers, 14 at the rank of Director General of Police (DGP) and eight at the Additional Director General of Police (ADGP) level, in violation of the 2017 cadre strength notification and the IPS Cadre Rules, 1954.
The petitioner contended that under Rule 8 of the IPS Cadre Rules, cadre posts must be filled by cadre officers and that no officer can hold an ex-cadre post beyond the authorised number without prior approval of the Centre. She claimed that Haryana had neither obtained such approval nor followed the mandatory procedure for creating ex-cadre posts, including financial clearance from the state finance department.
The petition further alleged that many cadre posts remained vacant while officers were being appointed to ex-cadre posts in direct contravention of Rule 10 of the IPS Cadre Rules, which bars keeping cadre posts vacant beyond six months without Centre’s nod.
Story continues below this ad
In its reply, the Haryana government had sought dismissal of the plea on the grounds of maintainability, arguing that service matters concerning All India Services officers fall within the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
The state had submitted that most of the IPS officers named in the petition no longer held the challenged posts as of the time of filing, with some having retired. Thus, the petition had become infructuous.
It further defended the postings by invoking Rule 4(2) of the IPS Cadre Rules, which allows temporary appointments for operational exigencies without prior approval from the Centre. The state also informed the court that a revision of cadre strength was already under process.
