Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Y.Shanmugam vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 15 November, 2024

                                                  1

 APHC010320202022
                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                     AT AMARAVATI                                           [3310]
                              (Special Original Jurisdiction)

                    FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
                      TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                                              PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

                        WRIT PETITION NO: 20764 OF 2022

Between:

Y.Shanmugam                                                                      ...PETITIONER

                                                AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others                                    ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

   1. P VENKATA RAMA SARMA

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

   1. N RANGA REDDY

   2. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES (AP)

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 calling for the records leading to issuance of the G.O.Rt.No.9 Consumer st Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS.II) Department dt 3.2.2022 of the 1 rd Respondent in appointing the 3 Respondent as Member of the Panel of the Selection Committee as illegal, arbitrary, bad in law, violative District Commission Tirupati contrary to the order of merit in Selected of Article 14 and 21 of the

Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions 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 and District Commission) Rules, 2020 and consequently by setting aside st the same direct the 1 Respondents to appoint the Petitioner as Member of the District Commission, Tirupati as per the selected panel of the Selection Committee in terms of Rule 6(9) and (10) of the 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 and District Commission) Rules 2020 and pass such other orders."

2. The precise case of the petitioner is that he applied for the post of

Member of the District Commission, Tirupati and he was issued Call Letter for

two levels both interview and final level interview and appeared before the

Selection Committee on 12.11.2021 along with other candidates. Surprisingly

a G.O.Rt.No.9, dated 03.02.2022 was issued by the 1st respondent appointing

the 3rd respondent to the post of Member, District Commission, Tirupati. When

he enquired about the same, the 1st respondent issued proceedings in favour

of 3rd respondent by influence, which is contrary to Rule 6(10) of the

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 and District Commission)

Rules 2020 (in short „the Rules‟). Hence, the present writ petition came to be

filed.

3. Heard Mr. P. Venkata Rama Sarma, learned counsel for the

petitioner; Mr. E. Sambasiva Prathap, learned Additional Advocate General for

the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. N. Ranga Reddy, learned counsel for the 3 rd

respondent.

4. During hearing learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the

contents urged in the writ affidavit and mainly contended that as per the

information obtained through Right to Information Act, the petitioner stood as

Sl.No.1 in the selection and got 22 marks (73.33%) top among the list of five

candidates including the 3rd respondent, who got only 19 marks (63.33%),

which is much lesser to the petitioner. When the order of merit has been

circulated with marks obtained by the each candidate in the interview before

the Selection Committee and the same has been submitted to the 1st

respondent, who does not have any other option except to approve the same

and issue the consequential proceedings of giving appointment letter to the

selected candidates. Without giving the appointment order as per the merit

list, the 1st respondent has given appointment to the 3rd respondent by

ignoring the merit of the petitioner is highly illegal and arbitrary. The

antecedents are clear without any remark and the 2 nd respondent verified two

times and he did not involve in any crime or whatsoever till date. Therefore,

inaction of the official respondents is questioned in this writ petition.

5. Per contra, 1st respondent filed counter-affidavit denying all material

allegations made in the writ affidavit and mainly contended that the petitioner

has appeared both interviews as per call letter before the Selection Committee

along with other screened candidates. The Selection Committee interviewed

the petitioner and awarded marks to the candidates including the petitioner

and kept the records in the sealed cover. The State Government after careful

examination of the recommendations made by the Selection Committee and

considering the antecedent reports issued G.O.Rt.No.9, dated 03.02.2022

appointing the 3rd respondent as Member, District Commission, Tirupati, who

assumed Charge on 07.02.2022 F.N and the Government has followed the

due procedure prescribed under the Rules. Hence, requested to dismiss the

same.

6. The 2nd respondent filed counter-affidavit denying all material

averments made in the writ petition and mainly contended that the

Superintendent of Police, Tirupati (U) addressed a letter to the Director

General of Police, Mangalagiri dated 22.11.2021 conducted enquires

regarding character and antecedents in respect of the petitioner and other

persons. The Superintendent of Police stated in his letter that „Nothing

Adverse" towards the petitioner and the petitioner has not involved in any

criminal case. Therefore, this respondent has no role, except forwarding the

antecedents reports to the Director General of Police. Hence, requested to

dismiss the writ petition.

7. The 3rd respondent filed counter-affidavit denying all material

allegations made in the writ petition and mainly contended that the petitioner

practiced as an Advocate from 2000 to 2006 and worked as Associate

Manager in DXC Technology India Private Limited from 2006 to 2018 and

later resumed his practice as Advocate. There are no cases filed by the

petitioner and which are pending in District Commission, Tirupati, as he has

been discharging his duties as Member in the Commission. Upon considering

the candidature, the Selection Committee has selected the petitioner for the

post of Member, District Commission, Tirupati and issued G.O.Rt.No.9, dated

03.02.2022 and he joined as Member on the FN of 07.02.2022 and has been

working since then till date. The 3rd respondent has retired as Junior Civil

Judge on superannuation on 30.06.2021 and the petitioner is having less

meritorious than this respondent. The 3rd respondent worked as Junior

Assistant in District Judiciary, Chittoor District on 23.10.1981 and completed

27 years of service and later joined as Junior Civil Judge in the year 2008.

The 3rd respondent has good experience as Junior Civil Judge and having

unblemished record. Therefore, the petitioner has no authority to question the

candidature of the 3rd respondent in this writ petition and requested to dismiss

the same.

8. Perused the record.

9. During hearing, learned Additional Advocate General for the

respondents 1 and 2 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 respondents 1 and 2

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.9, dated 03.02.2022 appointing the 3rd

respondent as Member, District Commission, Tirupati.

11. It is further contended by the learned Additional Advocate General

for the respondents 1 and 2 that in view of the above said rule, 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.

12. Learned counsel for the 3rd 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

(1977) 1 SCC 486

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."

13. 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"

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."

(1975) 4 SCC 709

14. 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.

15. Learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents 1 and 2

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 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 ..........."

16. Therefore, it is contended by the learned Additional Advocate

General that the respondents 1 and 2 have followed the due procedure as

contemplated under the Rules. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable

and same is liable to be dismissed.

AIR 2010 Kerala 28

17. Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent relied on a decision of

Hon‟ble Apex Court in "Union of India and Others v. Durgadass and

Others"4, wherein it was held as follows:-

" 2. Appearing in support of the appeal, Mr. V.C.Mahajan has raised a short point before us. He has drawn out attention to the chart printed at pages 328 to 330 in order to show that the selections made by the Departmental Promotion Committee were not, in any way, arbitrary. None of the petitioners before the High Court had better confidential remarks than the persons who were selected. The Departmental Promotion Committee, therefore, appears to have proceeded purely on the basis of merit and ability while selecting the candidates for the post of Superintendent, which admittedly was a selection post. It has not been shown to us nor proved to our satisfaction that the cases of the petitioners before the High Court were not considered. In fact, the chart shows that their cases were fully considered but in view of their confidential rolls, they were not considered fit for selection. In the circumstances, therefore, there was absolutely no justification for the High Court to interfere in the writ petitions and quash the selection made by the Departmental Promotion Committee......"

18. He further relied on a decision of Hon‟ble Apex Court in "Osmania

University rep., by its Registrar, Hyderabad v. Abdul Rayees Khan and

Another"5, wherein it was held as follows:-

"9............It is not necessary to reiterate what we have already stated with regard to the merit procedure prescribed by the UGC and the steps taken by the Osmania University in nominating two external experts on the subject to evaluate the respective papers presented by G. Manohar Rao, the second respondent and the first respondent for consideration of their claim for merit promotion as Reader and the subsequent selection. It would be self evident to show that the appellant had followed the procedure in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the UGC in referring the respective claims of the first

(1979) 1 SCC 59

(1997) 3 SCC 124

respondent and G. Manohar Rao, the second respondent for evaluating their papers.....

In view of the above statement of law, with which we are in respectful agreement we hold that generally the court may not interfere with the selection, relating to educational affairs, and academic matters may be left to the expert body to select best of the talent on objective criteria. What is the objective criteria is a question of fact in each case. Each case depends upon its own facts and the circumstances in which the respective claims of competing candidates has come up for consideration. No absolute rule in that behalf could be laid. Each case requires to be considered on its own merit and in its own setting, giving due consideration to the views expressed by the educational experts in the affairs of their administration or selection of the candidates".

19. During hearing learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the

contents urged in the writ petition and placed on record the decision of

Hon‟ble Division Bench of High Court of Bombay in "Yogesh Devidas Patil

and Others v. Union of India and Another" 6 , wherein it was held as

follows:-

"12. The law laid down by the Supreme Court in relation to disputes raised by unsuccessful candidates aspiring for public service is well-settled. Reference to all the decisions may not be necessary for the purpose of disposal of these writ petitions. However, the salutary principles laid down by the Supreme Court in its several decisions may be usefully condensed into "the ten commandments" for the same to be applied to the facts and circumstances of the present cases. The same are:

(i) The rule of appointments to public service is that it should be through open invitation and on merits. After the selection process is complete, a merit list or a select list (by whatever name called) has to be prepared. While filling up the vacancies, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the

2022 LawSuit(Bom) 276

candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted.

(ii) Inclusion of the name of a candidate in the merit/select list is at best a condition of eligibility for the purpose of appointment. A candidate in the merit/select, list though has no vested right to be appointed, he has a right to be considered for appointment and the State does not have the license of acting in an arbitrary manner. The appointing authority can neither ignore the list nor decline to make appointment on his whims.

(iii) Despite vacancies still being available for appointment out of the number of vacancies advertised, the successful candidates do not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies.

Nonetheless, the decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons.

(iv) Selection made by an authority for appointment is not ordinarily open to judicial scrutiny because whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not, has to be decided by the duly constituted Selection Committee which has the expertise on the subject. Since it lacks the expertise, it is not the function of the Court to hear appeals over the decisions of Selection Committees and to scrutinize the relative merits of candidates.

......"

20. In "M. Raghava Rani and Another v. Government of A.P" 7 ,

wherein the Hon‟ble Division Bench of this Court held as follows:-

" 15. Thus, it is clear that the Government has no power to override the recommendation of the Selection Committee and to appoint a candidate of its own choice. However the question that arises for our consideration is whether it is permissible for the Government to ignore the recommendations of the Selection Committee and to renotify the vacancies in question?

....

2004(5) ALT 188 (D.B)

20. It is true that a notification of vacancies merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection by the Selection Committee or by inclusion of their names in the list of selected candidates they do not acquire any right to the post. It is also true that the Selection Committee is only a recommendatory body and the recommendations of the Selection Committee being advisory in nature, undoubtedly, the appointing authority can have a say in finalization of the appointments. But, when objective criteria for selection has been clearly laid down under a Statute and the business of selection has been entrusted to a Committee consulted under the State itself, the question is whether the appointing authority can ignore the recommendation of the Selection Committee according to its own sweet will and pleasure?

.....

26. In the light of the ratio laid down in the above case with regard to the power of the Chancellor under Section 31(8)(a) of the U.P.State Universities Act, 1973, it is clear that the power to appoint conferred on the Government under Section 10 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is purely administrative in nature and as such its decision must be non-arbitrary and not based on extraneous or irrelevant considerations. No doubt, the recommendation made by the Selection Committee being advisory in nature, even in the absence of an express provision, the Government may disagree with the recommendations made by the Selection Committee and take a decision to renotify the vacancies. However such disagreement or disapproval cannot be as a matter of course, but only for valid reasons and on conscious application of mind to the recommendations made by the Selection Committee and the adverse material, if any."

21. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the

selections to public employment should be on the basis of merit. Appointment

of persons with lesser merit ignoring those who have secured more marks

would be in violation of the Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as laid

by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in "Anmol Kumar Tiwari v. The State of

Jharkhand and Others" 8 . In "Jatinder Kumar v. State of Punjab" 9 ,

wherein the Hon‟ble Apex Court held as follows:-

"If, however, the vacancy is to be filled up, the Government has to make appointment strictly adhering to the order of merit as recommended by the Public Service Commission. It cannot disturb the order of merit according to its own sweet will except for other good reasons viz., bad conduct or character".

22. A perusal of the material available on record would show that the 2nd

respondent submitted antecedent report by mentioning reasons that the

petitioner has influenced the recruitment authority through MLA and he is also

actively participating in Yadava Caste organization activities and member of

All India Yadava Mahasabha, therefore he is not suitable for the post of

Member of District Commission, Tirupati. Whereas, the profile of 3rd

respondent would show that he worked as Junior Civil Judge and having

experience and that he is suitable for job, which is disputed by learned

counsel for the petitioner. The 2nd respondent has not followed proper

procedure while getting antecedents of the selected candidates.

23. 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. :

Civil Appeal Nos. 429-430 of 2021, dated 18.02.2021

AIR (SC) 1850

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.

24. 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.

25. The 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"

26. 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.

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 3rd respondent as Member, District Commission, Tirupati.

Therefore, the impugned order vide G.O.Rt.No. 9, 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. 9,

dated 03.02.2022 to the extent of 3rd 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 Member, District Commissioner, Tirupati 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, 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.