Telangana High Court
Baddipadaga Raji Reddy vs Smt Kondapuram Saritha on 22 February, 2024
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
Writ Appeal Nos.129 & 135 of 2024
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)
Both these Writ Appeals are being disposed of by way
of this common order since the issue raised in these Writ
Appeals is one and the same.
2. Aggrieved by the order, dated 31.01.2024 passed by
the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.22394 of 2023.
W.A.No.129 of 2024 is filed by the 4th respondent in the
subject writ petition and W.A.No.135 of 2024 is filed by the
3rd respondent in the subject writ petition.
3. Heard Sri A. Ravinder, learned Senior Counsel
representing Sri B. Srikanth learned counsel appearing for
the appellant in W.A.No.129 of 2024 and respondent No.4
in W.A.No.135 of 2024; Sri A.P.Venugopal, learned counsel
representing Ms. Ch. Vedavani, learned counsel for the
appellant in W.A.No.135 of 2024 and respondent No.4 in
W.A.No.129 of 2024 and Sri A.P. Reddy, learned counsel
for respondent No.1 in both the appeals and the learned
::2:: AKS,J & RRN,J
wa_129 & 135_2024
Government Pleader for Services-III appearing for the
official respondents.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants had
contended that the 1st respondent/writ petitioner has
challenged the appointment of the appellants, dated
16.08.2023, wherein, the appellants were appointed as
members in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission (for short, 'DCDRC'). It is further contended
that the official respondents have issued a recruitment
notification on 22.08.2022 and the last date for submission
of applications for the post of members in DCDRC was
19.09.2022. The appellants and the 1st respondent have
responded to the said notification. The selection process
consists of written test followed by interview and 70 marks
would be awarded for written examination and 30 marks
for the interview. The written examination was conducted
on 19.11.2022 and the results of written examination were
declared on 12.12.2022. As the appellants have qualified in
the written examination, they were called to attend the
interview, which was held on 23.01.2023. The appellants
have appeared for the interview and by duly constituted
::3:: AKS,J & RRN,J
wa_129 & 135_2024
Selection Committee, they were selected and were given
appointment orders on 16.08.2023. The 1st respondent has
also participated in the selections, however, she was not
successful in the selection process. The 1st respondent
could not have challenged the appointment of the
appellants, as she has neither challenged the notification
nor the Rules. The 1st respondent after finding no place in
the selections has turned around and challenged the
appointment of the appellants by filing W.P.No.22394 of
2023 and the learned Single Judge was pleased to allow
the writ petition preferred by the 1st respondent vide order,
dated 31.01.2024 and the appointment of the appellants
was set aside, without appreciating any of the contentions
raised by the appellants.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants further contended
that the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public
Distribution, Department of Consumer Affairs has framed
the Consumer Protection (Qualification for appointment
modification of recruitment, procedure of appointment,
term of office, resignation and removal of the President and
Members of the State Commission and District
::4:: AKS,J & RRN,J
wa_129 & 135_2024
Commission) Rules, 2020 (for short, Rules, 2020') on
15.07.2020 in exercise of the powers under Sections 29
and 43 r/w clauses (n) and (w) of sub-section (2) of Section
101 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. As per the said
Rules, the official respondents have issued a notification
and after undergoing regular selection process only the
appellants were appointed as members of DCDRC and they
have been discharging their duties to the best satisfaction
of everyone. However, there was a challenge to the Rule
before the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court in the form
of PIL and writ petition i.e., PIL.No.11 of 2021 and
W.P.No.1096 of 2021 and the Nagpur Bench vide judgment
dated 14.09.2021 was pleased to struck down Rule 3 (2) (b)
and Rule 4(2) (c) and Rule 6 (9) of the said Rules holding it
as unconstitutional and discriminatory. Aggrieved by the
order passed by Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court, the
matter was carried to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil
Appeal No.831 of 2023 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court
was pleased to confirm the orders passed by the Nagpur
Bench of Bombay High Court vide judgment, dated
03.03.2023. The same issue was being raised before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto W.P. (Civil) No.2 of
::5:: AKS,J & RRN,J
wa_129 & 135_2024
2021 and the said writ petition is still pending before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court is
monitoring to fill up all vacancies in respect of President of
State Commission and members of the District
Commission and also about infrastructure in the District
Consumer Courts in tune with the Consumer Protection
Act, 2019 and appointments already made were protected
in the said case i.e., SMWP (C) No.2 of 2021. Therefore, the
learned Single Judge ought not to have interfered with the
selections of the appellants. Admittedly, the 1st respondent
has not challenged the notification nor the Rules and
Selection process and in the absence of the same, the
learned Single Judge could not have interfered with the
appointment of the appellants. Learned counsel had relied
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union
of India and others v. S. Vinod Kumar and others 1,
wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the
persons who participated in the selection process cannot
turn around and challenge the selections made. Learned
counsel also relied upon the judgment in Ranjan Kumar
2007 (2) SCC 792
::6:: AKS,J & RRN,J
wa_129 & 135_2024
v. State of Bihar and others 2, wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court also laid a principle that persons who
participated in the selections cannot turn around and
challenge the selections. To strengthen the arguments,
learned counsel for the appellants further relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India
v. Manjurani Routray 3, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that the persons who did not challenge the
notification and Rules have no right to challenge the
selections made by the authorities. Therefore, appropriate
orders be passed in the writ appeal by setting aside the
order passed by the learned Single Judge, so as to enable
the appellants to continue as members of DCDRC and
allow both the writ appeals.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 1st
respondent had contended that the appellants were
appointed pursuant to the Rules made by the Central
Government, dated 15.07.2020 and the Rules based on
which the appellants were appointed were struck down by
the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court i.e., in PIL.No.11
2014 (16) SCC 187
Civil Appeal no.2999 of 2010, dated 01.09.2023.
::7:: AKS,J & RRN,J
wa_129 & 135_2024
of 2021 and W.P.No.1096 of 2021, dated 14.09.2021 and
the same was also confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Civil Appeal No.831 of 2023, dated 03.03.2023.
When the Rules are struck down, the question of
upholding the appointments of the appellants would not
arise and the learned Single Judge was justified in setting
aside the appointment of the appellants. Learned counsel
further contended that the 1st respondent has secured 57.5
marks in the written examination, whereas, the appellants
have secured 46 and 47 marks respectively, and as per the
Rules, the interview is for 30 marks and the official
respondents have granted less marks to the 1st respondent
in the interview only to non-suit the 1st respondent, and
gave more marks to the appellants, and thereby tilted the
selection process heavily in favour of the appellants and
this was the precise reason for the Hon'ble Supreme Court
to set aside the Rules i.e, Rule 3 (2) (b) and Rule 4(2) (c)
and Rule 6 (9) of the said Rules, 2020. Therefore, the
learned Single Judge was justified in allowing the writ
petition by setting aside the appointment of the appellants.
Therefore, there are no merits in the writ appeals and the
same are liable to be dismissed.
::8:: AKS,J & RRN,J
wa_129 & 135_2024
7. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the
official respondents had contended that when the 1st
respondent has not challenged the Rules or the
notification, then she could not have challenged the
appointment of the appellants. As admittedly, the 1st
respondent has participated in the selection process and
was not selected, she could not turn around and challenge
the selections of the appellants. Therefore, appropriate
orders be passed in both the writ appeals.
8. This Court, having considered the rival submissions
made by parties, is of the view that the appellants were
appointed pursuant to the said Rules, 2020. When Nagpur
Bench of the Bombay High Court has set aside the Rule 3
(2) (b) and Rule 4(2) (c) and Rule 6 (9) of the Rules', 2020
vide judgment, dated 14.09.2021, which would mean that
as the appellants were appointed based upon the said
Rules and when the said Rules themselves were struck
down, the learned Single Judge was justified in setting
aside the appointment of the appellants, as the issue was
squarely covered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment
in Civil Appeal No.831 of 2023, dated 03.03.2023 where,
::9:: AKS,J & RRN,J
wa_129 & 135_2024
the judgment of the Nagpur Bench, Bombay High Court
were affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court has suspended the appointment of the
appellants already made and the issue is under
examination by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SMWP.(C)
No.2 of 2021 and SLP.No.25612 of 2023 and other
connected matters, which are pending before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. If the Hon'ble Supreme Court takes a
decision that the appointments, which were already made
cannot be disturbed then that benefit is always available to
the appellants. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to
interfere with the orders passed by the learned Single
Judge nor grant any stay in favour of the appellants, so as
to enable them to continue as members of DCDRC. When
the Hon'ble Supreme Court itself is adjudicating the case
in the form of SMWP.(C) No.2 of 2021 and the same is
pending, whatever decision that is likely to be taken by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, the same will also apply to the
appellants.
9. With the above said observations, all these Writ
Appeals are dismissed. No costs.
::10:: AKS,J & RRN,J
wa_129 & 135_2024
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if
any, shall stand closed.
__________________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
_____________________________________
__
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
Date : 22.02.2024
Prat/Tssb
::11:: AKS,J & RRN,J
wa_129 & 135_2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
Writ Appeal Nos.129 & 135 of 2024
Date : 22.02.2024
Prat/Tssb
