The Bombay High Court on Wednesday gave Maharashtra Government ten more days to appoint the new state
police chief after the government submitted that it had sought confirmation of the new appointee from Election Commission, in view of the code of conduct for the Lok Sabha polls.
    
The court had on February 5 set aside the appointment of Anami Roy as Maharashtra's director general of police, saying that the selection process was "arbitrary", violative of constitutional principle of equality and the Supreme Court's
guidelines.
    
A division bench of Chief Justice Swatanter Kumar and S A Bobde had then directed the state government to find a new DGP within four weeks. However, the deadline expired today.
    
Roy and the state government had challenged in the High Court, Central Administrative Tribunal's last year order of
setting aside his appointment as DGP. The Court specified that its judgement did not reflect on merit of Roy or other
officers in the fray.
    
Commenting on the noting by then Deputy Chief minister R R Patil on the file that Roy should be appointed as DGP "in
order to maintain law and order", the Court had ruled that the "decision of the deputy chief minister shows non-application f mind ... this could hardly be a reason for the exclusion of other three officers".

When Roy was appointed, S S Virk, a1970 batch IPS officer was the senior most, another IPS officer, Suprakash
Chakravarti, who is now DG Anti-Corruption challenged Roy's appointment before CAT, saying he superseded three senior officers, Virk, Chakravarti and J D Veerkar. Roy and the other two are 1972 batch officers.
    
Maharashtra Home Minister Jayant Patil told media-persons in Mumbai [Images] on Tuesday that all the four were in the 'zone of consideration' for the top police post in the state.
    
In the February 5 order, the High Court noted that the order of appointment did not say anything as to "how they
(decision-makers) came to the conclusion that Roy is the most appropriate and befitting officer to hold the post. Decision-making process was taken in undue haste ... it was not in conformity with administrative norms. The order is
arbitrary and violative of Article 14 (right to equality) of the Constitution," the Court ruled, adding there was "no
effective and appropriate consideration of (other) eligible officers."