The Centre has told the Delhi High Court the decision to appoint Gujarat-cadre IPS officer Rakesh Asthana as Delhi police commissioner was "just, necessary and in the public interest" to "effectively negotiate and handle the peculiar policing needs, and law and order situation in the national capital".
The Ministry of Home Affairs, in an affidavit, said the national capital has a specific and special requirement, as it witnessed certain untoward and extremely challenging public order problems, riots, crimes having an international implication, therefore the appointment of Asthana as Delhi's Commissioner of Police was made in "public interest".
It further said in view of complexities and the sensitivities involved and also considering that no officer of appropriate seniority with balanced experience, was available in the AGMUT cadre, it was felt that an officer belonging to a large state cadre, who had the exposure of complexities of governance and who had the knowledge of nuances of broad canvas policing is given charge of Commissioner of Police Delhi.
During the process of appointment of the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, the Cadre Controlling Authority (CCA) was faced with a precarious situation, as most of the appropriate level officers of AGMUT cadre were not having sufficient balanced experience of policing in a vast law and order sensitive state/central investigating agency/national security/paramilitary force for appointment of Delhi Police chief, it added.
The Centre maintained that no fault can be found in Asthana's appointment which was done in accordance with and after scrupulously following all the applicable rules and regulations.
The response came on a PIL by Sadre Alam which sought quashing of the July 27 order issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs appointing Asthana as the Delhi Police chief and also the order granting inter-cadre deputation and extension of service to him just before his superannuation on July 31.
The affidavit also claimed the PIL, as well as the intervention of NGO Centre for Public Interest Litigation, was an abuse of process of law and manifestly an outcome of some personal vendetta against the incumbent Police Commissioner entertained by the petitioner as well as the intervener.
It also gave a list of eight other IPS officers whose tenures were similarly extended and also provided a list of officers given inter-cadre deputation.
Check out the latest DH videos here: