Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Kummara Mohan vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 15 November, 2024

                                                    1

 APHC010228102022
                       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: 17534 OF 2022

Between:

Kummara Mohan                                                                     ...PETITIONER

                                                 AND

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:

   1. J SUDHEER

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

   1. A RADHAKRISHNA

   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:

".....it is humbly prayed to call for the records pertaining to G.O.Rt.No.8, dated nd 03.02.2022 through which the 2 respondent was appointed as President of District Commission and consequently direct the respondents to rectify the injustice meted out to the petitioner as illegal, violative of provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 r/w the Consumer Protect (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 (hereinafter referred as Rules) and unconstitutional and consequently appoint the petitioner as President of District Commission, Chittoor with all consequential benefits by issuance of Writ of Mandamus or issue any writ, Order or Direction in the interest of justice".

2. The precise case of the petitioner is that he has been enrolled as an

Advocate in 2010 and has been practicing at Tirupati. While so, 1st

Respondent issued Notification dated 17.03.2021 to fill up the posts of

President, District Consumer Commissions in the State of Andhra Pradesh,

including Chittoor. The age of the applicant shall not be less than 35 years

and more than 65 years as on the date of notification. It is curious to note that

no reservation for different communities is mentioned in the notification, which

contrary to the Act and Provisions. The petitioner applied for the post of

President and appeared for the interview on 04.08.2021 before the Selection

Committee and issued impugned G.O.Rt.No.8, dated 03.02.2022 by the 1st

respondent appointed the 2nd respondent as President, District Commission,

Chittoor, ignoring the candidature of the petitioner and without following 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 & District Commission)

Rules, 2020 (in short „the Rules‟). Therefore, inaction of the respondents is

questioned in this writ petition and requested to allow the same.

3. Heard Mr. J.Sudheer, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. E.Samba

Siva Prathap, learned Additional Advocate General for the 1st respondent and

Mr. Alladi Radhakrishna, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.

4. During hearing learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that

the 2nd respondent is not eligible to be appointed as President of District

Commission in as much as she is not even eligible to apply for the post of

District Judge as she was not practicing as an Advocate for 7 years before the

date of notification 17.03.2021 and she was working as Member of District

Consumer Commissioner in Chittoor District at Tirupati for two terms since

2010 (she worked as Lady Member of the Commission from 17.03.2010 to

16.03.2020). In view of the same, the petitioner should have been appointed

to the said post. The petitioner also applied for getting information under Right

to Information Act, but in vain. Under Section 95 of the Consumer Protect Act,

Presidents, Members, Chief Commissioner, Commissioner and certain officers

are treated as public servants, therefore, the said posts are public posts. In

view of the same, reservation has to be applied, but no reservation provided,

which is unconstitutional. As per Rule 4 of the Rules, a person shall not be

qualified for appointment as President, unless he is, or has been, or is

qualified to be a District Judge. It is further contended that as per Rule 6(8),

(10) and (11) the Selection Committee shall consider all the applications of

eligible applicants referred to it and shall recommend a panel of names in the

order of merit for consideration of the State Government, which is the

appointing authority and the State Government shall verify the credentials and

antecedents of the recommended candidates and appoint one among the

empanelled candidate. It is further contended that mere obtaining of higher

marks does not automatically entitle the petitioner to be appointed to the said

post. The 2nd respondent is not even qualified, in as much as, she does not

fall under any of three categories of persons mentioned as per Rule 4 of the

rules, therefore she could not have been called for interview. But ignoring all

legal formalities, the 1st respondent appointed the 2nd respondent as President

of District Commission, Chittoor is highly illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the

impugned order deserves to be set aside.

5. Per contra, 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 04.08.2021 itself 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 Commission, Chittoor and she assumed

charge on 05.02.2022 (FN). The State Government considered the other

parameters, suitability etc., required for selection as set out under Rule 6(9)

and arrived at the collective merit and the final selection before recommending

the appointment under G.O.Rt.No.8, dated 03.02.2022.

6. It is further contended that the 2nd respondent is enrolled as Advocate

on the Rolls of Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh on 23.04.1999 and practiced

as Advocate at Tirupati Bar Association for 10 years in proof of which, she

enclosed a Certificate issued by the Tirupati Bar Association dated

30.09.2009. Even though, she was not worked as Judicial Officer as she has

been practiced as an Advocate for more than 10 years. Therefore the 2nd

respondent is eligible for appointment to the post of President as provided

under Rule 4(1) of the rules. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be

dismissed.

7. On the other hand learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would

contend that as per Rule 4 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 & District Commission) Rules, 2020 (in short „the Rules‟) a

person shall not be qualified for appointment as President, unless he is, or

has been, or is qualified to be a District Judge. It is further contended that as

per Rule 6(8), (10) and (11) the Selection Committee shall consider all the

applications of eligible applicants referred to it and shall recommend a panel

of names in the order of merit for consideration of the State Government,

which is the appointing authority and the State Government shall verify the

credentials and antecedents of the recommended candidates and appoint

one among the empanelled candidate. It is further contended that the

petitioner has secured only 12 marks, whereas the 2nd respondent secured

23 marks and another applicant has secured 20 marks. Thus, it is evident the

petitioner secured less marks than the petitioner and another candidate.

Further as per Rule 6(11) of the Rules, the appointing authority is vested with

the power to appoint any person from the list of selected candidates consider

their credentials and antecedents. The State, in its wisdom, appointed the 2nd

respondent. In the absence of any allegations against the selection

committee or the appointment, the petitioner cannot wisdom of the selection

committee. It is a well settled law that mere short listing and mentioning of

candidate‟s name in the selected candidates list does not confer any vested

right on the candidate for appointment in the light of decision of "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 ..........."

8. And also relied on decision of "Susheela v. State of Kerala" 2 ,

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

"8. Dismissing the Writ Petition, it was also held that the selection committee is constituted in such a manner that within the yardstick provided in S.10(1)(b)(iii), that authority ought to be taken to have considered all the relevant materials because the selection committee in terms of S.10(1A) of the act has the Law Secretary and the Secretary in charge of the Department dealing with Consumer Affairs in the State as members. We affirm that view.

AIR 2010 Kerala 28= MANU/KE/0975/2009

MANU/KE/2414/2014

9. Perused the record.

10. 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.

11. Learned Additional Advocate General for the 1st respondent

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).

12. 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, Chittoor.

13. 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. In support of this

contention, 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"3, 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."

(1977) 1 SCC 486

14. Further, in "P. Panduranga Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh"4,

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."

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

(1975) 4 SCC 709

simple and apposite viz., "suggest as fit for employment" as per decision cited

supra. Therefore, it is contended by the learned Additional Advocate General

that the 1st respondent has followed the due procedure as contemplated

under the Rules. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable and same is

liable to be dismissed.

16. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of the Hon‟ble

Apex Court in "Dheeraj Mor v. High High Court of Delhi"5, wherein it was

held as follows:-

"45. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that for direct recruitment as District Judge as against the quota fixed for the advocates/ pleaders, incumbent has to be practicing advocate and must be in practice as on the cut off date and at the time of appointment he must not be in judicial service or other services of the Union of State. For constituting experience of 7 years of practice as advocate, experience obtained in judicial service cannot be equated/ combined and advocate/ pleader should be in practice in the immediate past for 7 years and must be in practice while applying on the cut off date fixed under the rules and should be practice as an advocate on the date of appointment. The purpose is recruitment from bar of a practicing advocate having minimum 7 years‟ experience."

47. We answer the reference as under:

(i).........

(ii) .......

(iii) .......

(iv) For the purpose of Article 233(2), an Advocate has to be continuing in practice for not less than 7 years as on the cut off date and at the time of appointment as District Judge. Members of judicial service having 7 years‟ experience of practice before they have joined the service or having combined experience of 7 years as lawyer and member of judiciary, are not eligible to apply for direct recruitment as a District Judge".

Indiankanoon.org/doc/10432983/ = C.A.No.1698 of 2020, dated 19.02.2020

.....

35. The Constitution makers, in the opinion of this court, consciously wished that members of the Bar, should be considered for appointment at all three levels, i.e as District Judges, High Courts and this court. This was because counsel practising in the law courts have a direct link with the people who need their services; their views about the functioning of the courts, is a constant dynamic. Similarly, their views, based on the experience gained at the Bar, injects the judicial branch with fresh perspectives; uniquely positioned as a professional, an advocate has a tripartite relationship: one with the public, the second with the court, and the third, with her or his client. A counsel, learned in the law, has an obligation, as an officer of the court, to advance the cause of his client, in a fair manner, and assist the court. Being members of the legal profession, advocates are also considered thought leaders. Therefore, the Constitution makers envisaged that at every rung of the judicial system, a component of direct appointment from members of the Bar should be resorted to. For all these reasons, it is held that members of the judicial service of any State cannot claim to be appointed for vacancies in the cadre of District Judge, in the quota earmarked for appointment from amongst eligible Advocates, under Article 233.

17. In view of the said decision, it is very clear regarding the

qualification of District Judge as against the quota fixed for the advocates/

pleaders, incumbent has to be practicing advocate and must be in practice as

on the cut off date and at the time of appointment he must not be in judicial

service or other services of the Union of State. For constituting experience of

7 years of practice as advocate, experience obtained in judicial service cannot

be equated/ combined and advocate/ pleader should be in practice in the

immediate past for 7 years and must be in practice while applying on the cut

off date fixed under the rules and should be practice as an advocate on the

date of appointment. The purpose is recruitment from bar of a practicing

advocate having minimum 7 years‟ experience." Therefore, the 2nd respondent

is ineligible for the post of President in District Commission, Chittoor. Hence,

the impugned order is liable to be quashed.

18. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents relied on a

decision of the High Court of Kerala in "N.Prem Kumar v. State of Kerala"6,

wherein the Court discussed catena of decisions including the decision of K.

Reghu Varma and Others's case and Susheela P.P's case (supra) to

fortify the contention of eligibility criteria and held that "once it is established

that those selected for appointment were persons included in the select list

prepared by the selection committee, the appointment made by the State

Government cannot be questioned. Viewed in that backdrop, the mere fact

that the panel that was sent to the Government by the selection committee

was not a panel that was prepared category-wise cannot be seen a defect that

was so material as to vitiate the appointments made. This is all the more so

when even the State Government, the appointing authority, does not have a

case that the exercise of its discretionary power, in the matter of appointment,

was in any way affected by the non-furnishing of a category-wise panel of

candidates." Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any relief in this

writ petition as contended by the learned counsel for the respondents.

19. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that it is

admitted by the respondents 1 and 2 in their counter affidavit that the 2 nd

respondent practiced as an Advocate between 1999 to 2010 i.e till she

WP(C) No.34020 of 2014 (B), dated 19.08.2015

became Member of the District Commission and therefore she is eligible. The

answer given by the respondents 1 and 2 is untenable, in as much as, the 2nd

respondent suspended her practice obviously while she was working as

Member for the last 10 years since 2010 and therefore should would not fall

under the meaning of has been functioning/ practicing as an Advocate for the

last 7 years. The contention of the respondents 1 and 2 that the 2nd

respondent functioned as an Advocate between 1999 to 2010 and therefore,

she is eligible to be appointed as District Judge and thereby she is eligible to

be appointed as President, District Commission is contrary to law.

20. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that

Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India, no person is eligible to be appointed

as a District Judge, if he has not been an advocate for not less than 7 years

as an Advocate, meaning thereby to be appointed as District Judge, one has

to be an advocate for not less than 7 years, who has been in advocacy. In

other words, a person, who has not been an advocate for the last 7 years,

prior to applying for the post of District Judge, cannot claim said right. In the

instant case, admittedly, the 2nd respondent would not fulfil the conditions

required for being appointed as a District Judge and therefore she could not

have been appointed as a President of District Commission, Chittoor.

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. Learned counsel for the petitioner produced copy of 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"

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 5th respondent in the

instant case is unwarranted as contended by learned counsel for the

respondents.

27. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner has secured 12 marks

and 2nd respondent secured 23 marks, but the petitioner claiming that no

reservation is provided to the public servant post as per Act. The police

forwarded the antecedent to report to the Director General of Police in a

formate, which is positive for the petitioner and against the 2nd respondent. At

the end of the column with regard to suitability to hold the post in the profile of

2nd respondent mentioned that „not suitable‟ and mentioned as „suitable‟ in the

profile of the petitioner. The said „Profile‟ contains no signature. Therefore,

how the said report is binding and how the government can look into is the

question at this juncture.

28. 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.

29. 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 5th respondent as President, District Commission, Chittoor. 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.

30. 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 Commissioner, Chittoor 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.

31. 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