Activist Ajay Dubey questioned IAS officer Aniruddhe Mukherjee’s appointment as MPPCB chairman after he took charge on July 6. Dubey said a separate order was needed. However, officials said his role is covered by a November 2022 notification. They said other officers also held the post using this same rule.
Dubey has questioned Mukherjee's assumption of charge as board chairman after taking over the Environment Department on July 6
BHOPAL: A controversy has emerged over the appointment of senior IAS officer Aniruddhe Mukherjee as chairman of the Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board (MPPCB), with environmental activist Ajay Dubey questioning the legal basis of his appointment. Government officials, however, maintain that his assumption of charge was covered by an existing notification issued in November 2022, which nominates the principal secretary of the Environment Department as chairman of the board. In a representation dated November 4, addressed to chief minister Mohan Yadav, Union environment minister and senior state and central government officials, Dubey has sought a review of Mukherjee's appointment and a Lokayukta inquiry into decisions taken during his tenure. According to Dubey, a General Administration Department order dated June 17, 2026, assigned Mukherjee, then president of the Board of Revenue, additional charge as additional chief secretary of the Environment Department, along with the responsibilities of commissioner (environment) and director general of the Environmental Planning and Coordination Organisation (EPCO). The order did not explicitly appoint him chairman of the MPPCB, he contends. Dubey has questioned Mukherjee's assumption of charge as board chairman after taking over the Environment Department on July 6, arguing that a separate statutory appointment order or Gazette notification was required. The government, however, cites an Environment Department notification dated November 14, 2022, issued under Section 4 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and Rule 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board (Qualifications and Other Terms and Conditions of Service of the Chairman) Rules, 2019. The notification, issued in the name of the Governor, nominates the principal secretary of the Environment Department as chairman of the MPPCB. Government officials maintain that since Mukherjee was assigned additional charge of the Environment Department, his assumption of the board chairmanship was covered by the existing notification and did not require a separate appointment order. An official, requesting anonymity, said IAS officers Navneet Kothari and Ashok Barnwal had also held the post on the same basis, without separate appointment orders from the Environment Department. Dubey disputes this interpretation. He argues that the November 2022 notification ceased to be applicable following changes in the statutory framework through the 2024 amendment to the Water Act and subsequent rules notified by the Centre. According to him, the appointment of a pollution control board chairman must follow the prescribed search-cum-selection process and be formalised through a Gazette notification. He maintains that no such notification was issued in Mukherjee's case. Dubey has also claimed that a proposal seeking the chief minister's approval for Mukherjee's appointment was rejected on July 6, questioning the procedure followed. The activist has additionally sought scrutiny of administrative decisions taken during Mukherjee's tenure, including promotions, transfers and statutory consents and permissions granted to industrial units. He has called for an independent examination of these decisions. The government maintains that Mukherjee's assumption of charge was based on the November 2022 notification. The central issue is whether that notification continued to remain applicable after the 2024 changes in the law and whether its provision covering the department's principal secretary also extends to an officer holding additional charge. The legal position on the applicability of the two notifications and the requirement, if any, for a fresh appointment order remains a key aspect of the controversy. Mukherjee's response to the representation was not available.