Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
V. Subba Reddy, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 15 November, 2024
1
APHC010127912022
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: 7588 OF 2022
Between:
V. Subba Reddy, ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. P NAGENDRA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. K RATHANGA PANI REDDY
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.8, dated
nd
03.02.2022 in respect of the appointment of the 2 respondent as President 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.8, 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
President 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 17.03.2022 inviting the application for appointment to the
post of President for various District Consumer Forums in the State of Andhra
Pradesh including Y.S.R Kadapa District. The petitioner applied for the post of
President. On 18.06.1998 the petitioner was selected as Assistant Public
Prosecutor and got 9 years of service. Since he got qualifications for
appointment to the post of President, he was called for interview by the
Selection Committee on 05.08.2021 and attended interview before them
including others and called for antecedents. The Superintendent of Police,
while verifying the antecedents called the petitioner on 06.12.2021 and
enquired about his antecedents. He informed to the Superintendent of Police
that a case in C.C.No.253 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial
Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa charged for the offence under Section 448 and
354 of IPC is pending against the petitioner due to property disputes between
the family members. As per Rule 6(9) and (10) 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‟) stated that pendency of the criminal case is not a ground for
disqualification for appointment of President to the District Forum as he has
not been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for an offence which
involves Moral Turpitude. But the Superintendent of police opposed to
recommend the name and made an endorsement while forwarding the same
to the 1st respondent. Assailing the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.3 of
2022 and this Court vide its order dated 06.01.2022 in I.A.No.1 of 2022
directed the 1st respondent not to disqualify the petitioner to the post of
President, District Commission on the ground of pendency of the criminal
case. While the matter is being pending before this Court, the 1st respondent
issued impugned G.O.Rt.No.8, dated 03.02.2022 appointing the 2 nd
respondent as President of District Commission, YSR Kadapa District, which
is contrary to Rule 6(10) of the Rules. Therefore, the present writ petition
came to be filed.
3. Heard Mr. P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr.
E. Sambasiva Prathap, learned Additional Advocate General for the 1st
respondent and Mr. M. Vijaya Kumar, learned Senior Counsel, representing
Mr. K. Rathanga Pani Reddy, 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 05.08.2021
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
President of District Commission. But the 1st Respondent issued G.O.Rt.No.8
dated 03.02.2022 selecting the Presidents of District commissions in the State
and directed them to assume the charge. Having surprised to know the
selection of the 2nd Respondent, he requested to furnish the marks and merit
list enabling him to question the action of the 1st respondent in appointing the
2nd respondent as President 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
President in District Commission, YSR Kadapa District is arbitrary and illegal.
6. Whereas learned Additional Advocate General for the 1st respondent
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
17.08.2021 and he 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.8, dated
03.02.2022 appointing 2nd respondent as President, District Consumer
Commission, YSR Kadapa and he assumed charge. Therefore, the writ
petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. Whereas, learned Senior Counsel for the 2nd respondent vehemently
contended that she also participated in the selection process and appointed
as President of the District Consumer Commission, Kadapa vide G.O.Rt.No.8,
dated 03.02.2022. As per Intelligence report it is mentioned at Column No.23
that the petitioner took VRS predicting the disciplinary proceedings from the
department for his corruption activities and as per Column No.29 mentioned
that the petitioner is not suitable for the post as he had bad reputation in the
society and collecting huge money from the culprits to help them and a
criminal case is pending against him. Whereas, the profile of the 2nd
respondent is concerned, at Column No.29 shown as suitable as he is having
good background and communication skills and mentioned no adverse
remarks. Therefore, the Government considered the candidature of the 2nd
respondent appointed him as President of District Commissioner, YSR
Kadapa and issued orders accordingly. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to
be dismissed.
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.8, dated 03.02.2022 appointing the 2nd
respondent as President, 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 counsel for the unofficial respondent has relied on a
decision of Hon‟ble Apex Court in "Mani Subrat Jain and Others v. State of
Haryana and Others"1, 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."
14. Further, in "P. Panduranga Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh"2,
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
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"
(1977) 1 SCC 486
(1975) 4 SCC 709
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."
15. 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.
16. 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" 3 , 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
AIR 2010 Kerala 28
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 ..........."
17. 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".
18. Learned Additional Advocate General for the 1st respondent
vehemently argued that the 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.8, dated 03.02.2022 appointing the 2nd
respondent as Woman Member, District Commission, YSR Kadapa
19. It is the contention of learned Senior Counsel for the 2nd respondent
that the petitioner is not competent to hold the post of a President of the
District Consumer Commission, Kadapa in view of C.C.No.253 of 2018 is
pending against the petitioner. 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. In
support of his contention he relied on a decision of Hon‟ble Apex Court in
"Registrar General, High Court of Madras v. R. Gandhi and Others" 4,
wherein it was held as follows:-
"[17] Be that as it may, facts and circumstances of these cases warrant
examination of the issue of maintainability at the threshold.
In Mahesh Chandra Gupta, this Court observed:
"39. At this stage, we may state that, there is a basic difference between
"eligibility" and "suitability". The process of judging the fitness of a person to
be appointed as a High Court Judge falls in the realm of suitability. Similarly,
the process of consultation falls in the realm of suitability.
41. The appointment of a Judge is an executive function of the President.
Article 217(1) prescribes the constitutional requirement of "consultation".
Fitness of a person to be appointed a Judge of the High Court is evaluated in
the consultation process.
2014 LawSuit(SC) 156
43. One more aspect needs to be highlighted. "Eligibility" is an objective
factor. Who could be elevated is specifically answered by Article 217(2).
When "eligibility" is put in question, it could fall within the scope of judicial
review. However, the question as to who should be elevated, which
essentially involves the aspect of "suitability", stands excluded from the
purview of judicial review.
44. At this stage, we may highlight the fact that there is a vital difference
between judicial review and merit review. Consultation, as stated above,
forms part of the part of the procedure to test the fitness of a person to be
appointed is content of that consultation is beyond the scope of judicial
review, though lack of effective consultation could fall within the scope of
judicial review. This is the basic ratio of the judgment of the Constitutional
Bench of this Court in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Assn. V. Union
of India 1993 4 SCC 441 and Special Reference No. 1 of 1998, Re
PRESIDENTIAL REFERENCE, 1998 7 SCC 739.
In the present case, we are concerned with the mechanism for giving effect to
the constitutional justification for judicial review. As stated above, "eligibility" is
a matter of fact whereas "suitability" is a matter of opinion. In cases involving
lack of "eligibility" writ of quo warranto would certainly lie. One reason being
that "eligibility" is not a matter of subjectivity. However, "suitability" or "fitness"
of a person to be appointed a High Court Judge: his character, his integrity,
his competence and the like are matters of opinion.
73. The concept of plurality of Judges in the formation of the opinion of the
Chief Justice of India is one of inbuilt checks against the likelihood of
arbitrariness or bias. At this stage, we reiterate that "lack of eligibility" as also
"lack of effective consultation" would certainly fall in the realm of judicial
review. However, when we are earmarking a joint venture process as a
participatory consultative process, the primary aim of which is to reach an
agreed decision, one cannot term the Supreme Court Collegium as superior
to High Court Collegium. The Supreme Court Collegium does not sit in appeal
over the recommendation of the High Court Collegium. Each Collegium
constitutes a participant in the participatory consultative process. The concept
of primacy and plurality is in effect primacy of the opinion of the Chief Justice
of India formed collectively. The discharge of the assigned role by each
functionary helps to transcend the concept of primacy between them.
74 ..These are the norms, apart from modalities, laid down in Supreme Court
Advocateson- Record Assn. and also in the judgment in Special Reference
No. 1 of 1998, Re. Consequently, judicial review lies only in two cases,
namely, "lack of eligibility" and "lack of effective consultation". It will not lie on
the content of consultation.
(See also: C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice AM Bhattacharjee & Ors. 1995 5
SCC 457)
......
[20] Thus, it is apparent that judicial review is permissible only on assessment
of eligibility and not on suitability. It is not a case where the writ petitioners
could not wait till the maturity of the cause i.e. decision of the collegium of this
Court. They took a premature step by filing writ petitions seeking a direction to
Union of India to return the list sent by the collegium of the Madras High Court
without further waiting its consideration by the Supreme Court collegium.
Even after the President of India accepts the recommendations and warrants
of appointment are issued, the Court is competent to quash the warrant as
has been done in this case of Shri Kumar Padma Prasad v. Union of India &
Ors. 1992 AIR(SC) 1213 wherein the recommendee was found not
possessing eligibility for the elevation to the High Court as per Article 217(2).
This case goes to show that that even when the President, has appointed a
person to a constitutional office, the qualification of that person to hold that
office can be examined in quo warranto proceedings and the appointment can
be quashed. (See also: B. R. Kapur v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr., 2001
AIR(SC) 3435 .
[21] In such a fact-situation, the writ petitioners or the members of the Bar
could approach Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India; or the Hon'ble Law
Minister, but instead of resorting to such a procedure, the writ petitioners had
adopted an unwarranted short cut knowing it fully well that on the ground of
the suitability, the writ petitions were not maintainable.
20. Learned Senior Counsel for the 2nd respondent vehemently argued
that in the light of the said decision, the writ petition is not maintainable and
that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. 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"
24. 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.
25. 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.8, 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".
26. 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
„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.
27. 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.
28. 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 President, District Commission, YSR Kadapa
District. In view of the aforementioned circumstances, the impugned order
vide G.O.Rt.No. 8, dated 03.02.2022 is liable to be set aside.
29. 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. 8,
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 respondent is directed to place In-charge for the
post of President, 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.
30. 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
