Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Smt Vedala Chandravadana vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 15 November, 2024
1
APHC010162352022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3310]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 10429 OF 2022
Between:
Smt Vedala Chandravadana ...PETITIONER
AND
The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. DR SASTRY JANDHYALA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. V R REDDY KOVVURI
2. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
seeking the following relief:
".....to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of
Mandamus to direct the action of the Respondent No.1 in issuing G.O.Rt.No.9, dated
nd
03.02.2022 in respect of the appointment of the 2 respondent as Women Member
of District Commission, YSR Kadapa District is concerned as arbitrary, illegal and
contrary to Rule 6(9) & (10) of Consumer Protection (Qualification for appointment,
method of recruitment, procedure of appointment, term of office, resignation &
removal of the President and members of the State Commission & District
Commission) Rules, 2020 and consequently set aside the G.O.Rt.No.9, dated
03.02.2022 issued by the Respondent No.1 to the extent of the Respondent No.2 is
concerned and further direct the Respondent No.1 to appoint the petitioner as
Women Member of District Commission, YSR Kadapa District as per the selected
Panel sent by the selection committee in terms of the Rule 6(9) & (10) of Consumer
Protection (Qualification for appointment, method of recruitment, procedure of
appointment, term of office, resignation & removal of the President and members of
the State Commission & District Commission) Rules, 2020 in the interest of justice".
2. The precise case of the petitioner is that the 2nd Respondent issued
notification, dated 22-03-2022 inviting the application for appointment to the
post of women member for various district Commissions in the State of
Andhra Pradesh including Y.S.R Kadapa District. The petitioner applied for the
post of Women Member and she attended final interview. After completing the
selection the name of the petitioner is shown in first place and the name of the
2nd respondent is at third place. The District Collector obtained antecedents
from the Superintendent of Police and forwarded the same to the 1st
Respondent. Since the petitioner was the first meritorious candidate, she is
expecting selection as Women Member for Kadapa District Consumer
Commission. The 1st Respondent issued impugned G.O.Rt.No.9 dated 03-02-
2022 appointing the Women Member for 13 Districts, the 1st Respondent
considered the appointment of 2nd Respondent as Women Member of District
Commission, YSR Kadapa District and her name is mentioned at Sl.No.30 in
the list. Since the appointment of the 2nd Respondent as Women Member of
District Commission is contrary to Rule 6 (10) rules, the present writ petition
came to be filed questioning the appointment of the 2nd respondent as illegal
and arbitrary.
3. Heard Mr. Dr. Sastry Jandhyala, learned counsel for the petitioner;
Mr. E. Sambasiva Prathap, learned Additional Advocate General for the 1st
respondent and Mr. O.Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, representing
Mr. V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.
4. During hearing learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that
the 1st respondent has no discretionary power to appoint the Women Member
of District Commission. As per Rule 6 of Consumer Protection (Qualification
for appointment, method of recruitment, procedure of appointment, term of
office, resignation and removal of the President and members of the State
Commission & District Commission) Rules, 2020 (in short „the Rules‟) a
Selection Committee has been constituted, which consists of Senior most
Sitting Judge of High Court, Secretary, Law Department and Secretary of
Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies Department, who determined its
procedure for making its recommendations keeping in view of the
requirements and after taking into account of suitability and etc., has to
recommend the panel of candidates for appointment in the order of merits for
consideration of the Government.
5. It is further contended that interviews was conducted on 11-11-2021
and the selection Panel was sent immediately. After conducting the interview,
the selection committee sent a Panel consisting of my name and the 2 nd
Respondent along with another person in the order of merits along with marks.
Since the selection panel is in the order of merit, the 1st Respondent has to
consider the first candidate in the selection panel for appointment to the
Women member of District Commission. But the 1st Respondent issued
G.O.Rt.No.9 dated 03-02-2022 selecting the Women Member of District
commission in the state and directed them to assume the charge. Having
surprised to know the selection of the 2nd Respondent, even though she is the
third meritorious candidate in the selection Panel and the name of the
petitioner was deferred, even though her name is shown as first selected
candidate and she requested to furnish the marks and merit list enabling her
to question the action of the 1st respondent in appointing the 2nd respondent
as Women Member of District Commission, YSR Kadapa District under Right
to Information Act. But till date the 1st Respondent did not furnish the
information as sought by me. The Petitioner has also submitted an appeal to
the Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, but in vain. Once the
information is furnished by the 1st Respondent, the truth will be elicited that the
1st Respondent committed fraud in appointing the 2nd Respondent by violating
the Rule 6(9) & 9(10) of the4 rules, her appointment is liable to be set aside
and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the 1st meritorious
candidate in the selection panel. Therefore, the action of the 1st respondent in
issuing impugned GO selecting and appointing the 2nd Respondent as Women
Member in District Commission, YSR Kadapa District is arbitrary and illegal.
6. Whereas the 1st respondent filed counter-affidavit denying all
material averments made in the writ affidavit and mainly contended that the
members of the screening committee interviewed the petitioner and awarded
marks and call letter was sent to the petitioner to appear for final stage of
interview before the Selection Committee on 11.11.2021 and she appeared on
that day. The State Government after careful examination of the
recommendations made by the Selection Committee and considering the
antecedent reports issued vide G.O.Rt.No.9 CAF & CS (CS.II) Department,
dated 03.02.2022 appointing 2nd respondent as Women Member, District
Consumer Commission, YSR Kadapa and she assumed charge on
05.02.2022 FN. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. Whereas, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent vehemently
contended that she also participated in the selection process and appointed
as female member of the District Consumer Commission, Kadapa vide
G.O.Rt.No.9, dated 03.02.2022. It is a fact that the petitioner has been
awarded more marks than the 2nd respondent and placed at Sl.No.1 and she
was placed in Sl.No.3 in the selection list. As per Intelligence report she is not
a confident person, that she is not mentally stable and that not able to handle
situations and unable to take proper decisions, that she was not capable to
handle any post as per the antecedents. Even after completion of the
selection process the petitioner resorted to disturb the court proceedings and
the member of the District Consumer Commission, Kadapa by scolding them
in the open court. It is further contended that the President of District
Consumer Commission has given a complaint to the State Bar Council, who in
turn referred to the disciplinary committee in the year 2023, which is pending.
Moreover, the staffs of the District Consumer Commission has given a
complaint against the petitioner and same was registered as Crime No.193 of
2023 of I Town Police Station, Kadapa for the offence punishable under
Section 353 and 506 of IPC and filed Charge Sheet. It is further contended
that the petitioner is not mentally stable and incapacity to handle the situation.
In support of his contention, copies of FIR and Charge Sheet filed. Therefore,
requested to dismiss the writ petition.
8. Perused the record.
9. During hearing, learned Additional Advocate General for the 1st
respondent drawn the attention of this Court with regard to procedure of
appointment, which reproduced hereunder:
6. Procedure of appointment:- (1) The President and members of the State
Commission and the District Commission shall be appointed by the State
Government on the recommendation of a Selection Committee, consisting of
the following persons, namely: -
(a) Chief Justice of the High Court or any Judge of the High Court nominated
by him-Chairperson;
(b) Secretary in charge of Consumer Affairs of the State Government -
Member;
(c) Nominee of the Chief Secretary of the State-Member.
(2) The Secretary in charge of Consumer Affairs of the State Government
shall be the convener of the Selection Committee.
(3) No appointment of the President, or of a member shall be invalid merely
by reason of any vacancy or absence in the Selection Committee other than a
vacancy or absence of the Chairperson.
(4) The process of appointments shall be initiated by the State Government at
least six months before the vacancy arises.
(5) If a post falls vacant due to resignation or death of a member or creation of
a new post, the process for filling the post shall be initiated immediately after
the post has fallen vacant or is created, as the case may be.
(6) The advertisement of a vacancy inviting applications for the posts from
eligible candidates shall be published in leading newspapers and circulated in
such other manner as the State Government may deem appropriate.
(7) After scrutiny of the applications received till the last date specified for
receipt of such applications, a list of eligible candidates along with their
applications shall be placed before the Selection Committee.
(8) The Selection Committee shall consider all the applications of eligible
applicants referred to it and if it considers necessary, it may shortlist the
applicants in accordance with such criteria as it may decide.
(9) The Selection Committee shall determine its procedure for making its
recommendation keeping in view the requirements of the State Commission
or the District Commission and after taking into account the suitability, record
of past performance, integrity and adjudicatory experience.
(10) The Selection committee shall recommend a panel of names of
candidates for appointment in the order of merit for the consideration of the
State Government.
(11) The State Government shall verify or cause to be verified the credentials
and antecedents of the recommended candidates.
(12) Every appointment of a President or member shall be subject to
submission of a certificate of physical fitness as indicated in the annexure
appended to these rules, duly signed by a civil surgeon or District Medical
Officer.
(13) Before appointment, the selected candidate shall furnish an undertaking
that he does not and will not have any such financial or other interest as is
likely to affect prejudicially his functions as a President or member.
10. Learned Additional Advocate General for the 1st respondents
vehemently argued that according to Rule 6 of the Rules, 2020 mainly deals
with Selection Committee, Method of Recruitment, Procedure for appointment
etc., According to Rule 6, the President and Members of the State and the
District Commissions shall be appointed by the State Government on the
recommendations of a Selection Committee consisting of the following
persons namely:
1. Chief Justice of the High Court or any Judge of the High Court
nominated by him (Chairperson).
2. Secretary In-charge of Consumer Affairs of the State Government
(Member).
3. Nominee of the Chief Secretary of the State (Member).
11. The said Selection Committee shall determine its procedure for
making its recommendation keeping in view of the requirements of the State
Commission or the District Commission and after taking into account the
suitability, record of past performance, integrity and adjudicatory experience.
The Selection committee shall recommend a panel of names of candidates for
appointment in the order of merit for the consideration of the State
Government and after verification of credentials and antecedents, the
Government appoint the member of the Commission. Accordingly the
Government issued G.O.Rt.No.9, dated 03.02.2022 appointing the 2nd
respondent as Women Member, District Commission, YSR Kadapa District.
12. It is further contended by the learned Additional Advocate General
for the 1st respondent that in view of the above said procedure, as there was a
duty cast upon the State Government to obtain physical fitness certificate and
also undertaking before giving appointment orders and informed to submit the
said documents to the office and after submission of the same, the
appointment orders were issued to the selected candidates.
13. Learned Additional Advocate General for the 1st respondent relied
on a decision of the High Court of Kerala in "State of Kerala and Another v.
K. Reghu Varma and Others" 1 , wherein the Hon‟ble Division Bench of
Kerala High Court held as follows:-
"8........For making the appointment from among the list of candidates
recommended, the appointing authority is not bound to follow the order
indicated by the Selection Committee since the Selection Committee is not
vested with such a power. That apart, being the subjective choice of the
appointing authority no reason need by given also.
9. True, the expression „recommendation‟ is not defined in the Act. But the
lexical meaning of the word is "to put forward with approval as being suitable
for a purpose or role; advise as a course of action; advise to do something‟,
„Recommendation" means „a suggestion or proposal as to the best course of
action ..........."
14. Learned Additional Advocate General for the 1st respondent drawn
the attention of this Court with regard to Rule 6(12) and 6(13) of the Rules,
2020, which reproduced hereunder:-
"12. Every appointment of a President or member shall be subject to
submission of a certificate of physical fitness as indicated in the annexure
appended to the rules, duly signed by a civil surgeon or District Medical
Officer.
13. Before appointment, the selected candidate shall furnish an undertaking
that he does not and will not have any such financial or other interest as it
likely to affect prejudicially his functions as a President or member".
15. Learned Additional Advocate General for the 1st respondent
vehemently argued that the Selection Committee shall determine its
AIR 2010 Kerala 28
procedure for making its recommendation keeping in view of the requirements
of the State Commission or the District Commission and after taking into
account the suitability, record of past performance, integrity and adjudicatory
experience. The Selection committee shall recommend a panel of names of
candidates for appointment in the order of merit for the consideration of the
State Government and after verification of credentials and antecedents, the
Government appoint the member of the Commission. Accordingly the
Government issued G.O.Rt.No.9, dated 03.02.2022 appointing the 2nd
respondent as Women Member, District Commission, YSR Kadapa
16. Learned Senior Counsel for the 2nd respondent has relied on a
decision of Hon‟ble Apex Court in "Mani Subrat Jain and Others v. State of
Haryana and Others"2, wherein it was held that
"The initial appointment of District Judges under Article 223 is within
the exclusive jurisdiction of the Government after consultation with the High
Court. The Governor is not bound to act on the advice of the High Court. The
High Court recommends the names of persons for appointment. If the names
are commended by the High Court it is not obligatory on the Governor to
accept the recommendation. Nor is the Governor obliged to give reasons for
not accepting the recommendations."
17. Further, in "P. Panduranga Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh"3,
wherein the Hon‟ble Apex Court held as follows:-
"7. It would be convenient to read once again Article 233 of the Constitution:
"(1) Appointments of persons to be, and the posting and promotion of, District
Judges in any State shall be made by the Governor of the State in
(1977) 1 SCC 486
(1975) 4 SCC 709
consultation with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such
State.
(2) A person not already in the service of th4e union or of the State shall only
be eligible to be appointed a district judge if he has been for not less than
seven years as Advocate or a pleader and is recommended by the Hihg Court
for appointment". As pointed out at p.89 by this Court in "Chandra Mohan v.
State of U.P"
There are two sources of recruitment namely, (i) service of the union or the
State, and (ii) members of the Bar. The said Judges from the first source are
appointed in consultation with the High Court and those from the second
source are appointed on the recommendation of the High Court.
8. A candidate for direct recruitment from the Bar does not become eligible for
appointment without the recommendation of the High Court. He becomes
eligible only on such recommendation under clause (2) of Article 233. The
High Court in the judgment under appeal felt some difficulty in appreciating
the meaning of the word "recommended". But the literal meaning vien in the
Concise Oxford Dictionary is quite simple and apposite. It means "suggest as
fit for employment". In case of appointment from the Bar it is not open to the
Government to choose a candidate for appointment until and unless his name
is recommended by the High Court."
18. Therefore, a candidate for direct recruitment from the bar does not
become eligible for appointment without the recommendation of the High
Court. He becomes eligible only on such recommendation under clause (2) of
Article 233. In this regard the literal dictator meaning of "recommend" is quite
simple and apposite viz., "suggest as fit for employment" as per decision cited
supra.
19. The police submitted antecedents report of the candidates without
following the statutory Circular Memo dated 15.11.2012 and created self
styled formate, a model formate is shown hereunder :
PROFILE OF SRI /SMT XXXXXXXXXX
1. Name of the Person :
2. Parentage/ spouse name :
3. Native District :
A) Temporary Address & Phone No. :
B) Permanent Address & Phone No. :
4. Date of Birth & Present age :
5. Educational Qualification :
6. Social Group & caste with category :
7. Party leanings if any :
8. Family background :
9. Marital Status- No of Children, ages, their :
occupation, etc.,
10. General Reputation :
A. Personal habaits
(i) Good habits
(ii) Bad habits
B. Character :
(Good/ satisfactory/ bad)
C. Conduct :
(Good/ satisfactory/ bad)
11. Positions held :
m) Past :
n) Present
12. Career in brief (Brief academic and personal :
history)
13. Integrity (Good/ doubtful/ corrupt) :
Please furnish the details clearly, if known
14. Allegations if any :
15. Involvement in criminal, controversial activities, :
etc.,
16. Positive aspects :
17. Negative aspects :
18. Whether he has capacity to be tough the :
control the organization.
19. Whether he earned respect/ high opinion of the :
colleagues/ students, etc.,
20. Has been convicted and sentenced to :
imprisonment for an offence which involves
moral turpitude
21. Has been adjudged to be insolvent :
22. Is of unsound mind and stands to declared by a :
competent court
23. Has been removed or dismissed from the :
service of the state government or central
government a body corporate owned or
controlled by such government
24. Has, in the opinion of the State Govt., such :
financial or other interest as is likely to
prejudicially affect his functions as the
President or a member
25. He has more than one wife living :
26. She marries knowingly a person having a wife; :
and
27. He is dismissed from service by any high court, :
government and statutory or local authority
28. He/ she directly or indirectly influences the :
recruitment authority by any means for his
candidature.
29. Suitability to hold the post :
(Clearly mention the category and also the
reasons for suitability)
a. Highly suitable.
b. Suitable
c. Not suitable.
20. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the police
instead of following the Circular Memo dated 15.11.2012, submitted self styled
formate and submitted antecedents twice with an intention to accommodate
the unofficial respondent. Therefore, the antecedents‟ reports submitted by the
police cannot be looked into and same is illegal, which has no legal sanctity.
In view of the same, the writ petition is liable to be allowed.
21. As per Circular Memo vide Cir.Memo No.132/SC.B/A1/2012-I,
General Administration (SC.B) Department, dated 15.11.2012, wherein at
Clause 4, reads as follows:-
"4. All the Departments in Secretariat and Heads of Departments are
requested to follow the revised attestation form only for verification of the
Character and antecedents of the candidate. The other guidelines/
instructions issued in the memo. 1st cited shall hold good and are hereby
reiterated"
22. As per antecedents report of certain members, which forwarded to
the Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh vide C.No.1358/VR-
SB/KDP/2021, dated 11.2021, at Sl.No.4 in the remarks column it is
mentioned that the petitioner is not involved in any criminal cases in YSR
District and there is no adverse against her character and conduct, so also 2 nd
respondent shown in Column No.6. Learned counsel for the petitioner
vehemently argued that in the antecedent report of the 2 nd respondent at
Column No.28 it is mentioned that she can influence the recruitment authority
through political sources. Contrary to the same, learned counsel for the 2nd
respondent would contend that as per Profile of petitioner would show at
Column No.29, it is mentioned that the petitioner is not a confident person and
she is not mentally stable and not able to handle situations and unable to take
proper decisions. She was not capable to handle any post.
23. No doubt, the respondents have not followed the Circular Memo
dated 15.11.2012, while inviting antecedents from the selected candidates
and created form/ profile for getting antecedents, which contains no signature
of the authority and not binding and lacks legal sanctity as discussed supra.
24. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of Hon‟ble
Apex Court in "DR. J.J.Merchant and Others v. Shrinath Chaturvedi" 4 ,
wherein it was held as follows:-
7......One of the main objects of the Act is to provide speedy and simple
redessal to consumer disputes and for that a quasi judicial machinery is
III (2002) CPJ 8 (SC)
sought to be set up at the district, State and Central levels. These quasi-
judicial bodies are required to observe the principles of natural justice and
have been empowered to give relief of a specific nature and to award,
wherever appropriate, compensation to consumers. ..........
8. .......It was further observed that „the Consumer Forums must take
expeditious steps to deal with the complaints filed before them and not keep
them pending for years. It would defeat the object of the Act, if summary trials
are not disposed of expeditiously by the Forums at the District, State or
National levels. Steps in this direction are required to be taken in the right
earnest".
25. He further relied on a decision of Division Bench of this Court in
"M/s Sivashakthi Builders and Another v. A.P.State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Hyderabad and Others"5,wherein it was discussed
in the case of "Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G.Industrial Institute"6, at
para 8, wherein it was held as follows:
"..........the quasi-judicial bodies authorities agencies created by the Act known
as District Forums, State Commission and the National Commission are not
Courts through invested with some of the powers of a Civil Court. They are
quasi-judicial Tribunals brought into existence to render inexpensive and
speedy remedies to consumers. It is equally clear that these Forums/
Commissions were not supposed to supplant but supplement the existing
judicial system. The idea was not provide an additional Forum providing
inexpensive and speedy resolution of disputes arising between consumers
and suppliers of goods and services. The Forum so created is uninhibited by
the requirement of Court fee or the formal procedures of a Court".
26. Further, he relied on a decision of High Court of Allahabad in
"Satya Narain Singh etc., v. The High Court of Judicature, Allahabad and
2009(1) L.S 269 (D.B)
(1995) 3 SCC 583
Others etc.,"7 , wherein it was held that "persons already in service cannot be
appointed District Judges by direct recruitment. Clause(2) of Article 233 is
applicable only to persons not already in the service of Union or of the State.
Service here means judicial service requirement of seven years practice at bar
necessary only in case of persons not already in service.
27. Before considering the case of the petitioner, the Selection
Committee made recommendations basing on the antecedents and
credentials of the candidates and submitted to the Government for issuing
appointment orders. The Government considered the all parameters and
adjudicatory experience required for selection as set out under Rule 6(9) and
arrived at the collective merit and issued G.O.Rt.No.9, dated 03.02.2022 and
he drawn the attention of this Court with regard to Rule 6(12) and 6(13) of the
Rules, 2020, which reproduced hereunder:-
"12. Every appointment of a President or member shall be subject to
submission of a certificate of physical fitness as indicated in the annexure
appended to the rules, duly signed by a civil surgeon or District Medical
Officer.
13. Before appointment, the selected candidate shall furnish an undertaking
that he does not and will not have any such financial or other interest as it
likely to affect prejudicially his functions as a President or member".
28. As per Rule 4 of the Rules clearly shows the qualification and
eligibility for the post of President and Member of the District Commission that
a person shall not be qualified for appointment as President, unless he is, or
has been, or is qualified to be a District Judge. Therefore, evidently, a person
1985 AIE 308
„qualified to be a District Judge‟ is qualified to be appointed as President. The
Phrase „Qualified to be" does not necessarily mean that the individuals should
be actively engaged in the profession at the time of consideration. If the
candidate was once qualified to hold a position, he is deemed to remain
qualified even if they are no longer practicing at the moment of appointment
process. Therefore, questioning the appointment of the 2nd respondent in the
instant case is unwarranted as contended by learned counsel for the
respondents.
29. It is a fact that the Selection Committee consists of three persons
namely Hon‟ble Judge of High Court, Secretary in-charge of Consumer Affairs
of the State Government and Law Secretary of the State, who recommended
the names of the candidates for final appointment after obtaining necessary
antecedent reports from the police. It is only option for the government to
issue appointment orders to the selected candidates basing on
recommendations made by the selection committee, but not interfering with
the recommendations made by them. The Selection Committee have placed
the names of the candidates as per merit shown as 1, 2 and 3. The duty cast
upon the government only to issue appointment order to the first meritorious
person after getting antecedents and credentials report obtained by the police.
If antecedent report is adverse to the first meritorious candidates, then
automatically shall consider case of the second meritorious candidate for
appointment for the respective post. But in the instant case, it vitiates, basing
on police report i.e credentials/ antecedents report, the government played
vital role in appointing the unofficial report without following due procedure as
contemplated under law. In view of limited purview of the government, the
government cannot act beyond the recommendations made by the Selection
Committee without any deviation. Further, it is very clear that the government
has no authority to question or interfere with the recommendations made by
the Selection Committee. In the instant case, the government without following
due procedure, while obtaining antecedents report and also adopted pick and
choose method, which is impermissible in law. The decisions relied by the
learned Additional Advocate General for the official respondent relates to
procedural aspects while issuing appointments, jurisdiction and role of the
Government, which are prior to amendment of the Consumer Protection Act.
Therefore, the same is not applicable in the instant case. Therefore, impugned
order is questioned in this writ petition.
30. In view of the foregoing discussion, it vitiates that the 1st respondent
has not followed due procedure as contemplated under the rules, while
appointing the 2nd respondent as Women Member, District Commission, YSR
Kadapa District. In view of the aforementioned circumstances, the impugned
order vide G.O.Rt.No. 9, dated 03.02.2022 is liable to be set aside.
31. Therefore, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with
following directions:
a) The impugned order issued by the 1st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No. 9,
dated 03.02.2022 to the extent of 2nd respondent is hereby set aside;
b) The 1st respondent is directed to obtain fresh credentials/
antecedents report from the selected candidates as per Circular Memo
No.132/SC.B/A1/2012-I, General Administration (SC.B) Department, dated
15.11.2012, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
c) Meanwhile, the 1st respondents are directed to place In-charge for the
post of Women Member, District Commission, YSR Kadapa as per procedure
to avoid inconvenience to the proceedings of the District Commission.
d) On submission of credentials/ antecedents report by the police, the
official respondents are directed to consider the same on merit basis and
issue fresh appointment orders to the suitable candidate, without any
deviation, strictly adherence in accordance with law, within a period of one
(01) month thereafter. Entire exercise shall be completed within two (02)
months.
32. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There
shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand
closed.
______________________________
DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
Dated: 15.11.2024.
KK
