NEW DELHI: Realising that the sudden replacement of DGP SP Vaid with Dilbagh Singh fell foul of the Supreme Court's guideline on DGP appointment, the J&K administration rushed to the SC on Friday and said it was a temporary arrangement necessitated by the peculiar ground situation in the militancy-affected state.The SC in Prakash Singh case had mandated that three months before a vacancy for the DGP's post, states must send names of eligible police officers to the Union Public Service Commission , which would prepare a panel of three officers from which the state could choose one to head its police force. "None of the states shall ever conceive the idea of appointing any person as DGP on acting basis," the SC had said.J&K, in its application filed through standing counsel M Shoeb Alam, told the SC that Dilbagh Singh's appointment as in-charge DGP was on "purely interim basis... till a regular arrangement is made". Singh would hold the DGP's post in addition to his assignment as Director General of Prisons, it said, and sought exemption from the guideline till a regular appointment was made.The state said the present case was "not that of an anticipated vacancy" which would have enabled it to forward a panel to the UPSC and "comply with the other rigours of the applicable procedure".Alam mentioned the application for urgent hearing before a bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra , who agreed to post it for hearing on Monday.The state said change of DGP was effected because of urgency. It qualified it by saying that Vaid was transferred and an interim replacement was immediately drafted in because of "the complex security concerns of the state, the prevailing peculiar ground situation, upcoming panchayat and local body elections, insurgency and terror related activities and unique law and order requirements. Such is the situation in the state that the state police force cannot be left headless"."In the peculiar circumstances prevailing in the state, the failure to appoint an in-charge DGP in the state in an emergent situation like the present would defeat the very objective behind and the spirit of the substantive guidelines drawn in the 2006 judgment (in Prakash Singh case) and further guidelines laid down by by SC in its order of July 3," it said.