Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Dr Vajrala V L Narasimha Rao vs Union Of India on 15 November, 2024

                                                    1

 APHC010411792022
                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                     AT AMARAVATI                                          [3310]
                              (Special Original Jurisdiction)

                 FRIDAY ,THE FIFTEENTH
                                    TH DAY OF NOVEMBER
                     TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                                           PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

                         WRIT PETITION NO: 25348 OF 2022

Between:

Dr Vajrala V L Narasimha Rao                                                     ...PETITIONER

                                              AND

Union Of India and Others                                                  ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

   1. A BHASKARA CHARY

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

   1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

   2. GP FOR LAW LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS

   3. MANOJ KUMAR BETHAPUDI

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 declaring the G.O. G.O.Rt.No.8 Consumer Affairs Food & Civil Supplies (CS.II) th Department, Dated 03..02.2022 so far as the 5 Respondents appointment is concerned as illegal, arbitrary in violation of concerned Rules and cannot stand to rd legal scrutiny and further direct the 3 Respondent to appoint the Petitioner as

President District Commission, Guntur as per the merit of Committee and pass such other orders."

2. The precise case of the petitioner is that he got enrolled as Advocate

in Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh on 22.02.1996 and practiced till 01.10.2008.

While he was working as Member in Ranga Reddy District Consumer Fourm,

the A.P.State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission issued Notification

and he applied for the post of Member in Seven District Consumer Forums,

except Tirupati Forum. The petitioner has been selected for five District

Forums. Thereafter, he got appointed as Member in Visakhapatnam-I District

Consumer Forum vide G.O.Rt.93, dated 23.08.2013 and he assumed charge

as Member on 07.10.2013 and he worked as President (FAC) on deputation in

Kakinada from 12.06.2015 to 20.08.2015 and Visakhapatnam-II Forum from

20.08.2015 to 16.11.2016. Later he has been deputed to work at

Vizianagaram District from 05.08.2017 to 06.10.2018.

3. While so, the 3rd respondent issued Notification dated 17.03.2021

calling for the applications to fill up the vacancies for the post of Presidents of

District Commissions and he applied for the post of President, Guntur District

Commission on 23.03.2021 and he appeared for the interview before the

Selection Committee on 06.08.2021. The 2nd respondent issued G.O.Rt.No.8,

dated 03.02.2022 appointing the candidates as Presidents in the District

Commission and the 5th respondent was appointed as President of District

Commission, Guntur, ignoring the candidature of the petitioner, which is illegal

and arbitrary. Hence, the present writ petition came to be filed.

4. Heard Mr. A. Bhaskara Chary, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr.

E.Sambasiva Prathap, learned Additional Advocate General for the

respondents 2 to 4 and Mr. Manoj Kumar Bethapudi, learned counsel for the

5th respondent.

5. During hearing learned counsel for the petitioner worked as Member

in Ranga Reddy District Forum on 03.10.2008 and President (FAC) from

10.07.2012 to 28.12.2012 and subsequently he worked as FAC President on

deputation in the State on several occasions and he attended several

orientation programmes. The petitioner got 24 marks out of 30 marks in the

interview and 5th respondent got 19 marks in the list of candidates, but the

respondents 2 to 4 appointed the 5th respondent as President of District

Commission, Guntur, ignoring the merit of the candidature of the petitioner,

which is highly illegal and arbitrary.

6. In support of contention of the petitioner, learned counsel for the

petitioner relied on a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in "DR. J.J.Merchant

and Others v. Shrinath Chaturvedi"1, wherein it was held as follows:-

7......One of the main objects of the Act is to provide speedy and simple redessal to consumer disputes and for that a quasi judicial machinery is sought to be set up at the district, State and Central levels. These quasi- judicial bodies are required to observe the principles of natural justice and have been empowered to give relief of a specific nature and to award, wherever appropriate, compensation to consumers. ..........

8. .......It was further observed that 'the Consumer Forums must take expeditious steps to deal with the complaints filed before them and not keep them pending for years. It would defeat the object of the Act, if summary trials

III (2002) CPJ 8 (SC)

are not disposed of expeditiously by the Forums at the District, State or National levels. Steps in this direction are required to be taken in the right earnest".

7. He further relied on a decision of Division Bench of this Court in "M/s

Sivashakthi Builders and Another v. A.P.State Consumer Disputes

Redressal Commission, Hyderabad and Others"2,wherein it was discussed

in the case of "Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G.Industrial Institute"3, at

para 8, wherein it was held as follows:

"..........the quasi-judicial bodies authorities agencies created by the Act known as District Forums, State Commission and the National Commission are not Courts through invested with some of the powers of a Civil Court. They are quasi-judicial Tribunals brought into existence to render inexpensive and speedy remedies to consumers. It is equally clear that these Forums/ Commissions were not supposed to supplant but supplement the existing judicial system. The idea was not provide an additional Forum providing inexpensive and speedy resolution of disputes arising between consumers and suppliers of goods and services. The Forum so created is uninhibited by the requirement of Court fee or the formal procedures of a Court".

8. Further, he relied on a decision of High Court of Allahabad in "Satya

Narain Singh etc., v. The High Court of Judicature, Allahabad and Others

etc.," 4 , wherein it was held that "persons already in service cannot be

appointed District Judges by direct recruitment. Clause(2) of Article 233 is

applicable only to persons not already in the service of Union or of the State.

Service here means judicial service requirement of seven years practice at bar

necessary only in case of persons not already in service.

2009(1) L.S 269 (D.B)

(1995) 3 SCC 583

1985 AIE 308

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied on a decision in "V.

Venkataiah Goud v. Government of A.P, Hyderabad and Another 5 ",

wherein this Court held as follows:-

"19. Therefore, by incorporating the selection criteria and the procedure, the Legislature had made mandatory for the executive to cause selection of persons through a committee on the basis of criteria laid down by the Legislature itself and then appoint them as members in tune with the principle of independence of Forum free from the Executive in tune with the observations made by the Apex Court in Sampanth Kumar's case (supra). Hence, the contention of the first respondent that the Government being the appointing authority has the absolute power either to accept or reject the recommendations of the selection committee cannot be countenanced".

10. In "Dinesh Kumar Kashyap and Others etc., v. South East

Central Railway and Others etc., 6", wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as

follows:-

"6.....It is no doubt correct that a person on the select panel has no vested right to be appointed to the post for which he has been selected. He has no right to be considered for appointment. But at the same time, the appointing authority cannot ignore the select panel or decline to make the appointment on its whims. When a person has been selected by the Selection Board and there is a vacancy which can be offered to him, keeping in view his merit position, then, ordinarily, there is no justification to ignore him for appointment. There has to be a justifiable reason to decline to appoint a person who is on the select panel. In the present case, there has been a mere inaction on the part of the Government. No reason whatsoever, not to talk of a justifiable reason, was given as to why the appointments were not offered to the candidates expeditiously and in accordance with law. The appointment should have been offered to Mr. Murgad within a reasonable time of availability of the vacancy and thereafter to the next candidate. The Central Government's approach in this case was wholly justified".

2000(2) ALD 63

Indiankanoon.org/doc/26504646/

11. In the light of aforementioned decisions, this Court has jurisdiction to

entertain this matter and question the irregularities committed by the

respondents in violating the procedure as contemplated under rules.

Therefore, requested to allow the writ petition.

12. Per contra, the respondents 2 and 3 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 06.08.2021 and he appeared on

that day along with other candidates. 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, Guntur and she assumed charge on 04.02.2022 FN.

Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

13. So also, 5th respondent filed counter-affidavit denying all material

allegations made in the writ affidavit and mainly contended that that she 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') she appointed as President of the District

Consumer Commission, Guntur vide G.O.Rt.No.8, dated 03.02.2022. The 5th

respondent is the only member possessing PG Diploma in Consumer Law

obtained from the National Law University, Bangalore one of the premier

institutes in the country. Therefore, it can be seen that the 5th respondent is no

way inferior to the petitioner to hold the post to which she was appointed in

February 2022 and since then discharging her duties. The Government after

careful examination of the credentials and antecedents report appointed the

5th respondent as President of District Commission, Guntur. Therefore, the

writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

14. Perused the record.

15. 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. (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.

16. Learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents 2 to 4

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).

17. 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 5th

respondent as President, District Commission, Guntur.

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

for the respondents 2 to 4 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"7, 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."

19. Further, in "P. Panduranga Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh"8,

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.

(1977) 1 SCC 486

(1975) 4 SCC 709

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."

20. 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.

21. Learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents 2 to 4

relied on a decision of the High Court of Kerala in "State of Kerala and

Another v. K. Reghu Varma and Others"9, 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',

AIR 2010 Kerala 28

'Recommendation" means 'a suggestion or proposal as to the best course of action ..........."

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

General that the respondents 2 to 4 have followed the due procedure as

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

and same is liable to be dismissed.

23. During hearing learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued

that the petitioner obtained information from the Bar Council of the State of

Andhra Pradesh dated 21.08.2024, wherein it is stated that the 5th respondent

got enrolled as an Advocate on the Rolls of the Bar Council of Andhra

Pradesh on 12.06.2003 vide Enrolment No.AP/828/2003. As per records of

the office, the 5th respondent is in continuous practice from the date of her

enrolment. It appears that the 5th respondent without suspending her practise,

working as President of District Commission. Whereas she joined as Member,

District Commission, Guntur from 2009-2019 and now she is working as

President, District Commission, Guntur with effect from 04.02.2022.

Therefore, the 5th respondent suppressed the material facts and furnished

wrong information to the official respondents.

24. The 'Profile" submitted by the police with regard to petitioner it is

mentioned that though mentioned qualifications and the post hold by him

earlier in detail, but come to the capacity of the petitioner in the column it is

mentioned that "his previous and present experience show that he has no

capacity to hold any important positions in judiciary or quasi judiciary posts"

and finally mentioned that he is not suitable to hold the post as per

antecedents. Whereas the 'profile' of 5th respondent is concerned it is

mentioned that she is suitable to hold the post, which contain no signature.

Therefore, how the said report is binding with legal sanctity is the question and

which is disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner.

25. 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.

26. 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.

27. 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"

28. 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.

29. It is a fact that the Selection Committee consists of three persons

namely Hon'ble Judge of High Court, Secretary in-charge of Consumer Affairs

of the State Government and Law Secretary of the State, who recommended

the names of the candidates for final appointment after obtaining necessary

antecedent reports from the police. It is only option for the government to

issue appointment orders to the selected candidates basing on

recommendations made by the selection committee, but not interfering with

the recommendations made by them. The Selection Committee have placed

the names of the candidates as per merit shown as 1, 2 and 3. The duty cast

upon the government only to issue appointment order to the first meritorious

person after getting antecedents and credentials report obtained by the police.

If antecedent report is adverse to the first meritorious candidates, then

automatically shall consider case of the second meritorious candidate for

appointment for the respective post. But in the instant case, it vitiates, basing

on police report i.e credentials/ antecedents report, the government played

vital role in appointing the unofficial report without following due procedure as

contemplated under law. In view of limited purview of the government, the

government cannot act beyond the recommendations made by the Selection

Committee without any deviation. Further, it is very clear that the government

has no authority to question or interfere with the recommendations made by

the Selection Committee. In the instant case, the government without following

due procedure, while obtaining antecedents report and also adopted pick and

choose method, which is impermissible in law. The decisions relied by the

learned Additional Advocate General for the official respondent relates to

procedural aspects while issuing appointments, jurisdiction and role of the

Government, which are prior to amendment of the Consumer Protection Act.

Therefore, the same is not applicable in the instant case. Therefore, impugned

order is questioned in this writ petition.

30. In view of the foregoing discussion, it vitiates that the respondents 2

to 4 have not followed due procedure as contemplated under the rules, while

appointing the 5th respondent as President, District Commission, Guntur.

Therefore, the impugned order vide G.O.Rt.No. 8, dated 03.02.2022 is liable

to be set aside.

31. Therefore, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with

following directions:

a) The impugned order issued by the 2nd respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.8,

dated 03.02.2022 to the extent of 5th respondent is hereby set aside;

b) The official respondents 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 Commissioner, Guntur 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.

32. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There

shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

closed.

______________________________ DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO Dated: 15.11.2024.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

+ WRIT PETITION No. 25348 of 2022

% 15.11.2024

# Dr. Vajrala V.L.Narasimha Rao ... Petitioner.

Vs.

$ Union of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs & Food and Public Distribution, Department of Consumer Affairs, rep., by its Secretary, New Delhi and Others ... Respondents.

! Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. A. Bhaskara Chary

! Counsel for the Respondents: 1. E. Sambasiva Prathap, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents 2 to 4.

2. Mr. Manoj Kumar Bethapudi, learned counsel for the 5th respondent.

< Gist: