Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kalikiri Sireesha vs Union Of India, on 15 November, 2024
1
APHC010306552022
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: 18214 OF 2022
Between:
Kalikiri Sireesha ...PETITIONER
AND
Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. B SUDHAKAR REDDY AND NEERAJA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. K RATHANGA PANI REDDY
2. GP FOR SERVICES I
3. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES
4. GP FOR SERVICES II
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
th
Mandamus to declare the appointment of the 5 respondent as President of District
Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission Kadapa vide G.O.Rt.No.8 Consumer
Affairs Food and Civil Supplies (CS.II) Department, dt 3.2.2022 in so far as the
appointment of President for District Commission YSR Kadapa as illegal, arbitrary,
contrary to Rule 6 (II) of Consumer Protection qualification for appointment, method
of recruitment, procedure of appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of
President and members of State Commission and District Commission Rules, 2020
framed under Consumer Protection Act 2019 and set aside the G.O.Rt.No.8
Consumer Affairs Food and Civil Supplies (CS.II) Department dt 3.2.2022 in so far as
th
the 5 respondent is concerned and consequently to appoint the petitioner, who is
placed at SI.No.1 of the selection committee list, on merit as per rules, in the interest
of justice".
2. The precise case of the petitioner is that she was selected as
Member, District Consumer Forum, YSR Kadapa District in 2009 vide
G.O.Ms.No.7, dated 26.02.2010 and she joined duty on 03.03.2010 FN and
for some she acted as FAC President, District Forum, Kadapa and demitting
office on 02.03.2020 and she is having 10 years of service. While the matter
stood thus, the 2nd respondent issued notification and she applied for the post
of President, District Commission, YSR Kadapa District and she attended
interview before the Selection Committee and placed her name at Sl.No.1 and
5th respondent is placed at Sl.No.3. Therefore, the petitioner is held to be
meritorious and got highest marks than others. But the 2nd respondent
ignoring the meritorious candidature of the petitioner issued G.O.Rt.No.8,
dated 03.02.2022 appointing 5th respondent as President, District
Commission, YSR Kadapa is highly illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the present
writ petition came to be filed.
3. Heard Ms. B. Neeraja S. Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner,
who appeared virtually; Mr. E. Sambasiva Prathap, learned Additional
Advocate General for the respondents 1 to 4 and Mr. K. Rathangapani Reddy,
learned counsel for the 5th respondent.
4. During hearing learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that
she placed at Sl.No.1 by the Selection Committee and awarded 23 marks out
of 30 marks, whereas the 5th respondent was placed at Sl.No.3. Further the 5th
respondent, who is a legal practitioner, never held any posts in District
Commission and is not even an active practitioner in courts. Whereas the
petitioner is active practitioner in Consumer Forum since 1993 and she was
discharging duties as Lady Member, so also FAC President of District
Commission, YSR Kadapa District and having 10 years of service. The
petitioner is meritorious than others and not having any type of black mark.
Thus the appointment of 5th respondent, who was allotted only 16 marks
against 30 marks; one Mr. V. Subba Reddy, who was placed at Sl.No.2, who
obtained 18 marks and when she obtained 23 marks against 30 marks is
nothing than a colourable exercise of power and contrary to the Rule 6(11) of
the Rules framed under Consumer Protection (qualification for appointment,
method of recruitment, procedure of appointment, term of office, resignation
and removal of President and members of State Commission and District
Commission Rules, 2020 framed under Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in
short „the Rules‟). Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. The respondents 2 and 3 have filed counter-affidavit denying all
material allegations 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 05.08.2021 and the petitioner
and other candidates were appeared. 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 CAF & CS (CS.II)
Department, dated 03.02.2022 appointing 5th respondent as President,
District Commission, YSR Kadapa and he assumed charge on 05.02.2022
FN. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. So also, 5th respondent filed counter-affidavit denying all material
allegations made in the writ affidavit and mainly contended that that he also
participated in the selection process and 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‟) he appointed as President of the District
Consumer Commission, Guntur vide G.O.Rt.No.8, dated 03.02.2022. The 5th
respondent obtained information under Right to Information Act, wherein the
profile of the petitioner would show at Column No.13 that while she working as
Bar Association President and Member, Consumer Forum Member, she faced
many corruption allegation and her husband worked as District President
Youth Congress in Kadapa and she is irregular to duty etc., and that she is not
suitable for Member. Therefore, antecedent report is negative for the petitioner
and that the petitioner is not entitled for the post of President, District
Commission, YSR Kadapa. The Government after careful examination of the
credentials and antecedents report appointed the 5th respondent as President
of District Commission, YSR Kadapa District. Therefore, the writ petition is
liable to be dismissed.
7. Perused the record.
8. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
petitioner is meritorious than others and not having any type of black mark.
Thus the appointment of 5th respondent, who was allotted only 16 marks
against 30 marks; one Mr. V. Subba Reddy, who was placed at Sl.No.2, who
obtained 18 marks and when she obtained 23 marks against 30 marks is
nothing than a colourable exercise of power and contrary to the Rule 6(11) of
the Rules. The said Mr. V. Subba Reddy also filed W.P.No.7588 of 2022,
questioning the impugned order vide G.O.Rt.No.8, dated 03.02.2022, issued
in favour of the 5th respondent herein, which is pending. The 2nd respondent
failed to follow the Rule 6(11) of the Rules and issued appointment order in
favour of the 5th respondent is highly illegal and arbitrary.
9. It is further contended by learned counsel for the 5th respondent that
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 5th 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 ..........."
10. During hearing, learned Additional Advocate General for the
respondents 2 to 4 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.
AIR 2010 Kerala 28= MANU/KE/0975/2009
(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.
14. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the 5th respondent
has relied on a decision of Hon‟ble Apex Court in "Registrar General, High
Court of Madras v. R. Gandhi and Others"2, 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.
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.
2014 LawSuit(SC) 156
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.
15. And also, relied on a decision of Hon‟ble Apex Court in "Avtar
Singh v. Union of India and Others"3, wherein it was discussed the case of
Division Bench of Hon‟ble Apex Court in (Jainendra Singh case, SCC
pp.761-62, paras 29-31) held as follows:-
"29.2. Verification of the character and antecedents is one of the
important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable to be post
(2016) 8 SCC 471
under the State and on account of his antecedents, the appointing authority if
finds it not desirable to appoint a person to a disciplined force can it be said to
be unwarranted".
8. The Court has held thus: (Sushil Kumar case, SCC pp. 605-06,
para 3)
3......The question is whether the view taken by the Tribunal is correct
in law? It is seen that verification of the character and antecedents is one of
the important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable to a
post under the State. Though he was found physically fit, passed the written
test and interview and was provisionally selected, on account of his
antecedent record, the appointing authority found it is not desirable to appoint
a person of such record as a Constable to the disciplined force. The view
taken by the appointing authority in the background of the case cannot be
said to be unwarranted......"
16. Further, learned Additional Advocate General relied on a decision of
the Hon‟ble Apex Court in "Union of India and Others v. Kali Dass Batish
and Another"4, and also relied on a decision in "N. Prem Kumar v. State of
Kerala"5, wherein High Court of Kerala discussed the decision of Registrar
General, High Court of Madras v. R. Gandhi and Others and "K. Reghu
Varma and Others cited supra held that an assessment of suitability is not
justifiable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the writ
petition is not maintainable and same is liable to be dismissed.
17. 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
(2006) 1 SCC 779
WP (C) No. 34020 of 2014 (B), dated 19.08.2015
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.
18. Learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents 2 to 4
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 5th
respondent as President, District Commission, YSR Kadapa District.
19. The police submitted antecedents report of the candidates without
following the statutory Circular Memo dated 15.11.2012 and created self
styled formate, a model formate is shown hereunder :
PROFILE OF SRI /SMT XXXXXXXXXX
1. Name of the Person :
2. Parentage/ spouse name :
3. Native District :
A) Temporary Address & Phone No. :
B) Permanent Address & Phone No. :
4. Date of Birth & Present age :
5. Educational Qualification :
6. Social Group & caste with category :
7. Party leanings if any :
8. Family background :
9. Marital Status- No of Children, ages, their :
occupation, etc.,
10. General Reputation :
A. Personal habaits
(i) Good habits
(ii) Bad habits
B. Character :
(Good/ satisfactory/ bad)
C. Conduct :
(Good/ satisfactory/ bad)
11. Positions held :
m) Past :
n) Present
12. Career in brief (Brief academic and personal :
history)
13. Integrity (Good/ doubtful/ corrupt) :
Please furnish the details clearly, if known
14. Allegations if any :
15. Involvement in criminal, controversial activities, :
etc.,
16. Positive aspects :
17. Negative aspects :
18. Whether he has capacity to be tough the :
control the organization.
19. Whether he earned respect/ high opinion of the :
colleagues/ students, etc.,
20. Has been convicted and sentenced to :
imprisonment for an offence which involves
moral turpitude
21. Has been adjudged to be insolvent :
22. Is of unsound mind and stands to declared by a :
competent court
23. Has been removed or dismissed from the :
service of the state government or central
government a body corporate owned or
controlled by such government
24. Has, in the opinion of the State Govt., such :
financial or other interest as is likely to
prejudicially affect his functions as the
President or a member
25. He has more than one wife living :
26. She marries knowingly a person having a wife; :
and
27. He is dismissed from service by any high court, :
government and statutory or local authority
28. He/ she directly or indirectly influences the :
recruitment authority by any means for his
candidature.
29. Suitability to hold the post :
(Clearly mention the category and also the
reasons for suitability)
a. Highly suitable.
b. Suitable
c. Not suitable.
20. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the police
instead of following the Circular Memo dated 15.11.2012, submitted self styled
formate and submitted antecedents twice with an intention to accommodate
the unofficial respondent. Therefore, the antecedents‟ reports submitted by the
police cannot be looked into and same is illegal, which has no legal sanctity.
In view of the same, the writ petition is liable to be allowed.
21. Circular Memo vide Cir.Memo No.132/SC.B/A1/2012-I, General
Administration (SC.B) Department, dated 15.11.2012, wherein at Clause 4,
reads as follows:-
"4. All the Departments in Secretariat and Heads of Departments are
requested to follow the revised attestation form only for verification of the
Character and antecedents of the candidate. The other guidelines/
instructions issued in the memo. 1st cited shall hold good and are hereby
reiterated"
22. 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.
23. 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".
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. 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 5rd respondent as President, District Commission, YSR
Kadapa. Therefore, the impugned order vide G.O.Rt.No. 8, dated 03.02.2022
is liable to be set aside.
27. Therefore, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with
following directions:
a) The impugned order issued by the respondents 2 and 3 vide
G.O.Rt.No. 8, dated 03.02.2022 to the extent of 5th respondent is hereby set
aside;
b) The official respondent(s) is/are 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 official respondents are directed to place In-charge
for the post of President, District Commission, YSR Kadapa District 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.
28. 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
