HC dismisses PIL against extension to Parasuram

BHOPAL: The Madhya Pradesh high court on Friday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) that challenged the six-month extension given to state's chief secretary R Parasuram.
The bench of Justice KK Lahoti and Justice UC Maheshwari dismissed the PIL on the ground that the state government had taken the decision to extend Parasuram's service with the approval of state cabinet, which was subsequently forwarded to the office of Prime Minister for consent.
In their petition, retired IPS officer Arun Gurtoo and RTI activist Ajay Dubey had demanded to revoke extension granted to him after his retirement on March 31, citing it as violation of a Supreme Court ruling.
Earlier in June 2013, high court had directed 'competent authority' to dispose of the complaint challenging chief secretary's extension within two weeks' time. But when nothing happened, we had moved a PIL in the court, said Dubey adding that they will move the Supreme Court against the decision.
Chief secretary R Parasuram was granted six months extension from April 1 this year.
Chief minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan had sought extension from the Centre for senior Parasuram citing his "outstanding track record". He was granted six months extension on January 31.
"All India Services rule states that extension has to be sought from state government along with a detailed proceeding and not by a letter of recommendation from the CM" says Dubey adding that all set norms were violated. There is no official record of a proposal seeking extension for chief secretary, he said.
He claimed that CM recommended the extension when a complaint of alleged corruption against Parasuram was pending with the state Economic Offences Wing (EOW). "The complaint which was subject to an inquiry was overlooked. There was no vigilance clearance also, said the petitioner.
Counsels for the petitioners Sanjay K Agrawal and Rajesh Chand argued that the Supreme Court had made it clear that extension should only be given in the absence of qualified persons and extreme cases. In this case there was no such merit that made Parshuram eligible for extension. Similarly, there were at least eight qualified persons to occupy the chair as well, they said.
The Bench, however, disagreed with the submissions and dismissed the petition after finding no fault in the procedures the state government had adopted for his extension.