Telangana High Court
Baddipadaga Raji Reddy vs Smt Kondapuram Saritha on 22 February, 2024
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
Writ Appeal Nos.129 & 135 of 2024
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili) Both these Writ Appeals are being disposed of by way of this common order since the issue raised in these Writ Appeals is one and the same.
2. Aggrieved by the order, dated 31.01.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.22394 of 2023. W.A.No.129 of 2024 is filed by the 4th respondent in the subject writ petition and W.A.No.135 of 2024 is filed by the 3rd respondent in the subject writ petition.
3. Heard Sri A. Ravinder, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri B. Srikanth learned counsel appearing for the appellant in W.A.No.129 of 2024 and respondent No.4 in W.A.No.135 of 2024; Sri A.P.Venugopal, learned counsel representing Ms. Ch. Vedavani, learned counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.135 of 2024 and respondent No.4 in W.A.No.129 of 2024 and Sri A.P. Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1 in both the appeals and the learned ::2:: AKS,J & RRN,J wa_129 & 135_2024 Government Pleader for Services-III appearing for the official respondents.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants had contended that the 1st respondent/writ petitioner has challenged the appointment of the appellants, dated 16.08.2023, wherein, the appellants were appointed as members in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, 'DCDRC'). It is further contended that the official respondents have issued a recruitment notification on 22.08.2022 and the last date for submission of applications for the post of members in DCDRC was 19.09.2022. The appellants and the 1st respondent have responded to the said notification. The selection process consists of written test followed by interview and 70 marks would be awarded for written examination and 30 marks for the interview. The written examination was conducted on 19.11.2022 and the results of written examination were declared on 12.12.2022. As the appellants have qualified in the written examination, they were called to attend the interview, which was held on 23.01.2023. The appellants have appeared for the interview and by duly constituted ::3:: AKS,J & RRN,J wa_129 & 135_2024 Selection Committee, they were selected and were given appointment orders on 16.08.2023. The 1st respondent has also participated in the selections, however, she was not successful in the selection process. The 1st respondent could not have challenged the appointment of the appellants, as she has neither challenged the notification nor the Rules. The 1st respondent after finding no place in the selections has turned around and challenged the appointment of the appellants by filing W.P.No.22394 of 2023 and the learned Single Judge was pleased to allow the writ petition preferred by the 1st respondent vide order, dated 31.01.2024 and the appointment of the appellants was set aside, without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the appellants.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Department of Consumer Affairs has framed the Consumer Protection (Qualification for appointment modification of recruitment, procedure of appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of the President and Members of the State Commission and District ::4:: AKS,J & RRN,J wa_129 & 135_2024 Commission) Rules, 2020 (for short, Rules, 2020') on 15.07.2020 in exercise of the powers under Sections 29 and 43 r/w clauses (n) and (w) of sub-section (2) of Section 101 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. As per the said Rules, the official respondents have issued a notification and after undergoing regular selection process only the appellants were appointed as members of DCDRC and they have been discharging their duties to the best satisfaction of everyone. However, there was a challenge to the Rule before the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court in the form of PIL and writ petition i.e., PIL.No.11 of 2021 and W.P.No.1096 of 2021 and the Nagpur Bench vide judgment dated 14.09.2021 was pleased to struck down Rule 3 (2) (b) and Rule 4(2) (c) and Rule 6 (9) of the said Rules holding it as unconstitutional and discriminatory. Aggrieved by the order passed by Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court, the matter was carried to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.831 of 2023 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to confirm the orders passed by the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court vide judgment, dated 03.03.2023. The same issue was being raised before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto W.P. (Civil) No.2 of ::5:: AKS,J & RRN,J wa_129 & 135_2024 2021 and the said writ petition is still pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court is monitoring to fill up all vacancies in respect of President of State Commission and members of the District Commission and also about infrastructure in the District Consumer Courts in tune with the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and appointments already made were protected in the said case i.e., SMWP (C) No.2 of 2021. Therefore, the learned Single Judge ought not to have interfered with the selections of the appellants. Admittedly, the 1st respondent has not challenged the notification nor the Rules and Selection process and in the absence of the same, the learned Single Judge could not have interfered with the appointment of the appellants. Learned counsel had relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. S. Vinod Kumar and others 1, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the persons who participated in the selection process cannot turn around and challenge the selections made. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment in Ranjan Kumar 1 2007 (2) SCC 792 ::6:: AKS,J & RRN,J wa_129 & 135_2024 v. State of Bihar and others 2, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court also laid a principle that persons who participated in the selections cannot turn around and challenge the selections. To strengthen the arguments, learned counsel for the appellants further relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Manjurani Routray 3, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the persons who did not challenge the notification and Rules have no right to challenge the selections made by the authorities. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ appeal by setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge, so as to enable the appellants to continue as members of DCDRC and allow both the writ appeals.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 1st respondent had contended that the appellants were appointed pursuant to the Rules made by the Central Government, dated 15.07.2020 and the Rules based on which the appellants were appointed were struck down by the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court i.e., in PIL.No.11 2 2014 (16) SCC 187 3 Civil Appeal no.2999 of 2010, dated 01.09.2023.
::7:: AKS,J & RRN,J
wa_129 & 135_2024
of 2021 and W.P.No.1096 of 2021, dated 14.09.2021 and the same was also confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.831 of 2023, dated 03.03.2023. When the Rules are struck down, the question of upholding the appointments of the appellants would not arise and the learned Single Judge was justified in setting aside the appointment of the appellants. Learned counsel further contended that the 1st respondent has secured 57.5 marks in the written examination, whereas, the appellants have secured 46 and 47 marks respectively, and as per the Rules, the interview is for 30 marks and the official respondents have granted less marks to the 1st respondent in the interview only to non-suit the 1st respondent, and gave more marks to the appellants, and thereby tilted the selection process heavily in favour of the appellants and this was the precise reason for the Hon'ble Supreme Court to set aside the Rules i.e, Rule 3 (2) (b) and Rule 4(2) (c) and Rule 6 (9) of the said Rules, 2020. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in allowing the writ petition by setting aside the appointment of the appellants. Therefore, there are no merits in the writ appeals and the same are liable to be dismissed.
::8:: AKS,J & RRN,J
wa_129 & 135_2024
7. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents had contended that when the 1st respondent has not challenged the Rules or the notification, then she could not have challenged the appointment of the appellants. As admittedly, the 1st respondent has participated in the selection process and was not selected, she could not turn around and challenge the selections of the appellants. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in both the writ appeals.
8. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by parties, is of the view that the appellants were appointed pursuant to the said Rules, 2020. When Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has set aside the Rule 3 (2) (b) and Rule 4(2) (c) and Rule 6 (9) of the Rules', 2020 vide judgment, dated 14.09.2021, which would mean that as the appellants were appointed based upon the said Rules and when the said Rules themselves were struck down, the learned Single Judge was justified in setting aside the appointment of the appellants, as the issue was squarely covered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in Civil Appeal No.831 of 2023, dated 03.03.2023 where, ::9:: AKS,J & RRN,J wa_129 & 135_2024 the judgment of the Nagpur Bench, Bombay High Court were affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has suspended the appointment of the appellants already made and the issue is under examination by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SMWP.(C) No.2 of 2021 and SLP.No.25612 of 2023 and other connected matters, which are pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. If the Hon'ble Supreme Court takes a decision that the appointments, which were already made cannot be disturbed then that benefit is always available to the appellants. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Single Judge nor grant any stay in favour of the appellants, so as to enable them to continue as members of DCDRC. When the Hon'ble Supreme Court itself is adjudicating the case in the form of SMWP.(C) No.2 of 2021 and the same is pending, whatever decision that is likely to be taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the same will also apply to the appellants.
9. With the above said observations, all these Writ Appeals are dismissed. No costs.
::10:: AKS,J & RRN,J
wa_129 & 135_2024
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J _____________________________________ __ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J Date : 22.02.2024 Prat/Tssb ::11:: AKS,J & RRN,J wa_129 & 135_2024 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO Writ Appeal Nos.129 & 135 of 2024 Date : 22.02.2024 Prat/Tssb