Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Sri Ginka Reddy Sekhar vs Gollakaram Ravi Sankar on 25 April, 2025
Author: B. Krishna Mohan
Bench: B. Krishna Mohan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WRIT APPEAL No.942 of 2024
Between:
Sri Ginka Reddy Sekhar, S/o G. Subbaramaiah,
President, District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Golden Jubilee Bhavan,
Collectorate Compound, SPSR Nellore District. .... Appellant/Respondent
No.5
And
1. Gollakaram Ravi Sankar,
S/o Late G.V. Subbarao, Aged about 53 years,
Occupation: Advocate, Flat No.501, Alavala
Residency, Rajiv Nagar, Ongole, Prakasam
District, Andhra Pradesh. .... Respondent/Writ Petitioner
2. State of Andhra Pradesh, Consumer Affairs,
Food and Civil Supplies Department, Rep. by
Its Principal Secretary, Secretariat Building,
Velagapudi, Guntur District - 522 503.
3. The Ex-officio Secretary to Government,
Food and Civil Supplies Department, Rep.
by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat Building,
Velagapudi, Guntur District - 522 503.
2
4. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by
Secretary to Government, Legal &
Legislative Affairs & Justice,
Law Department, A.P. Secretariat,
Velagapudi, Guntur District - 522 503. .... Respondent/Respondent
Nos.2 to 4 in
W.P.No.40274 of 2022
Counsel for the Appellant: Sri M. Vijaya Kumar
Counsel for the Respondent (s): Sri Dheera Krishna and
Additional Advocate General
The Court made the following:
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WRIT APPEAL No.942 of 2024
JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Nyapathy Vijay)
1. The present Writ Appeal is filed questioning the Order
dated 15.11.2024 passed in W.P.No.40274 of 2022 whereunder the
appointment of the Appellant/Respondent No.5 as the President, District
Commission, SPSR Nellore District was set-aside.
2. The parties are referred to as they were arrayed in the Writ Petition.
This appeal was heard along with a batch of appeals and case law was
cited by the Counsel and Senior Counsel appearing for the respective
parties. As facts in each appeal are not similar, separate Judgments are
being passed addressing the contentions advanced.
3. The introductory facts:-
A Notification was issued on 17.03.2021 by the State of Andhra
Pradesh vide Roc.No.3/DC-P/Sectt/CS-II Dept/2020 inviting applications
to fill up vacant posts of Presidents of District Commissions of
Ananthapuramu, Tirupathi, Kakinada, Rajahmundry, Guntur, YSR
Kadapa, Machilipatnam, Ongole, Srirakulam, Visakhapatnam-II,
Vizianagaram, Eluru and Chittoor, totalling to 13 vacancies.
4
4. As per the Notification, the applicants should have the qualifications
prescribed for the post of a District Judge and should be above 35 years
and below 65 years under Sections 28 to 30 of the Consumer Protection
Act, 2019. The procedure for selection is that the Selection Committee
shall, on the basis of the assessment made by it in the interview and after
satisfying the eligibility criteria and after taking into account the suitability,
record of past of performance, integrity and adjudicatory experience, will
recommend a panel of names of applicants for appointment as
Members/Presidents from amongst the applicants in the order of merit for
approval to the State Government and for issuance of appointment orders
to the selected applicants.
5. The Selection Committee shortlisted the applicants and conducted
interview and after considering the applications recommended the
individuals in the order of merit based on the marks awarded in the
interview. Out of the appointments made, the dispute is restricted to the
Nellore, Guntur, YSR Kadapa and Chittoor District Commissions.
6. Out of the recommended candidates for appointment to the post of
District President/Member, the Respondent-State issued appointments
contrary to the order of merit even though nothing detrimental was noted
against the Writ Petitioner contrary to the order of merit vide
G.O.Rt.No.27, Consumer Affairs, Food & Civil Supplies (CS.II)
5
Department, Dated 24.05.2022. Hence, the Writ Petition was filed
questioning the appointment.
7. In the present case, the order of merit for appointment to the post
of President of Nellore District Commission, SPSR Nellore District is as
follows:
LIST OF CANDIDATES SHORTLISTED FOR FURTHER PROCESS FOR THE POST OF
PRESIDENT, DISTRICT COMMISSION, NELLORE.
Sl. Application Name of the Marks Marks Marks Total
No. No. applicant allotted by allotted by allotted by Marks
Hon'ble Secretary, Secretary, allotted
Judges CA, F&Cs Law
1. 7 Sri Gollakaram 7 7 8 22
Ravi Sankar
2. 6 Ms Chollangi 6 6 6 18
Vani Bala
3. 5 Sri Ginka Reddy 5 5 5 15
Sekhar
8. Contrary to the same, the person at S.No.3 was appointed. In the
affidavit filed in support of Writ Petition, the Writ Petitioner pleaded that he
is a practising Advocate and had served as Additional Public Prosecutor
for VI Additional District Judge from 2005 to 2010 and had received
service awards as the best Additional Public Prosecutor from the District
Administration. It was also pleaded that the Writ Petitioner was a trained
Mediator by the Legal Services Authority and High Court Legal Services
Committee and has been conducting meditations before the District Legal
Services Authority, Ongole. It was contended that the Respondent No.5
was working as Special Judicial II Class Magistrate in YSR Kadapa
District by the date of notification and being a non-practising Advocate, is
6not qualified to be a District Judge, which is the criteria prescribed for
appointment as President of the District Consumer Commission.
9. The Respondent No.5 filed his counter contending that he was
enrolled as an Advocate from the year 2002 with Enrollment
No.AP/97/2002 at Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh and had practised till
the year 2020. It was further pleaded that the Respondent No.5 had
worked as Legal Aid Counsel in the Junior Civil Judge’s Court,
Lakkireddipalle, Annamayya District from the year 2013 to 2016 and also
worked as Assistant Government Pleader in the same Court from the
year 2016 to 2020 apart from being a Legal Advisor for Kadapa
Consumer Protection Council (Association), Kadapa from the year 2006
to 2020.
10. It was further pleaded that the Respondent No.5 was appointed as
Special Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Rayachoti with a consolidated
honorarium of Rs.15,000/- per month and was appointed as President,
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, SPSR Nellore
District vide G.O.Rt.No.27, Consumer Affairs, Food & Civil Supplies
Department, dated 24.05.2022 and he resigned for the post of Special
Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Rayachoti on 31.05.2022. According to
the Respondent No.5, he is entitled to be appointed as District Judge
since he has practised for more than 17 years and had assumed office
after resigning as Special Judicial Second Class Magistrate.
7
11. The Respondent No.5 contended that the recommendation of the
panel of names by the Selection Committee is subject to verification and
credentials and antecedents and the Writ Petitioner was appointed only
after the said exercise and therefore the appointment of Respondent No.5
cannot be faulted.
12. The Respondent-State filed its counter contending that the
appointment was made after considering the antecedent report and
therefore there is no merit in questioning the appointment of the
Respondent No.5. However, there is no plea in the Counter Affidavit that
the Petitioner was facing any trial for grave offence under IPC/BNS.
13. The learned Single Judge after referring to Rule 6 of the Rules held
that the antecedent report relied on by the Respondent No.5 is not in
consonance with the Circular Memo vide Cir. Memo
No.132/SC.B/A1/2012-I, General Administration (SC.B) Department,
dated 15.11.2012 and does not contain any signature of any authority,
set-aside the appointment of Respondent No.5 and the Official
Respondents were directed to obtain fresh credentials/antecedents as per
the Circular Memo dated 15.11.2012 and in the meantime, the Official
Respondents were directed to place an in-charge to avoid inconvenience
to the District Commission proceedings. The Official Respondents were
directed to issue appointment orders on the basis of the
8credentials/antecedents and the time calendared for compliance was two
months. Hence, the present Writ Appeal.
14. Contentions:- Heard Sri M. Vijaya Kumar, learned Senior Counsel
assisted by Sri Dheera Krishna, learned counsel for the Appellant
and Sri Pavan Kumar Pasupuleti, learned counsel for the
Respondent/Writ Petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General.
15. The counsel for the Appellant contended that the rules provide for
discretion to the State for appointment among the panel of names of
candidates recommended by the Selection Committee depending on the
antecedent report. The counsel for the Appellant emphasized on
Rule 6(11) of the Rules to substantiate his plea that the State
Government shall verify the credentials and antecedents of the
candidates before issuing appointment orders. It was contended that in
this particular case the antecedent report received against the Writ
Petitioner was not satisfactory and there were doubts regarding her
integrity and therefore, the appointment of the Appellant/Respondent
No.5 cannot be faulted. It was further contended that the State
Government has discretion to appoint Members from the selection panel
and choice of the State Government cannot be questioned for not
following the order of merit.
9
16. The counsel for the Appellant further contended that the Circular
Memo dated 15.11.2012 is not relevant as even assuming that the
antecedent report is contrary thereto, the same is not of much relevance
since the core content of the report was taken note by the State
Government before issuing appointment order. It was further contended
that the State Government has discretion to appoint Members from the
Selection Panel and the choice of the State Government cannot be
questioned for not following the order of merit.
17. The counsel for the Respondent/State contended that the
appointment was made after receiving the antecedent reports of the
recommended candidates and that there is no violation of any Circular
Memo. It was contended that Writ Petitioner was ineligible as per Rule
5(v) of the Rules in view of adverse antecedent report. Further, it was
contended that the antecedent report was sent along with a covering
letter by the concerned authority to the State Government and therefore
the antecedent report cannot be said to be not in the prescribed format.
18. The counsel for the Respondent/Writ Petitioner contended that the
antecedent report relied upon by the Respondent/State is running
contrary to the antecedent report furnished by the then Superintendent of
Police vide C.No.1358/VR-SB/KDP/2021 sent to the Director General of
Police, Andhra Pradesh for verification of the antecedents of the
Petitioner along with other persons, who were shortlisted for interview to
10the post of President of District Consumer Forum, YSR Kadapa. As per
the said report, there is no adverse remark regarding the character and
conduct of the Writ Petitioner.
19. The counsel for Respondent further contended that a reading of the
antecedent report relied on by the Appellant and Respondent- State
shows that the same is inconsistent and wholly unreliable as the same
does not have signature of any individual verifying the correctness of the
report and that it is apparent that the antecedent report was customised
to suit for appointment of Respondent No.5.
20. The counsel relied upon Division Bench Judgment of Punjab and
Haryana High Court in Ashish Kumar Grover and Others vs. State of
Punjab and Others1, dated 15.02.2024 which was confirmed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No.11196 of 2024 dated
01.04.2024. The other cited judgements were the Division Bench
Judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Urvasi Agnihotri vs.
State of Punjab2 and the Division Bench Judgments of Kerala High Court
in State of Kerala vs. K. Reghu Varma & Others3 and N. Premkumar
vs. State of Kerala4
1
2024 LawSuit (P&H) 323
2
2024 LawSuit (P&H) 447
3
2009 SCC OnLine Ker 3620
4
2015 SCC OnLine Ker 25225
11
21. Issues:- After hearing the respective counsel, the issue that falls
for consideration is as follows:-
Whether the State Government had exceeded its scope under the
Rules in appointing President/Members of District Consumer
Forum?
22. Reasoning:-
The procedure for appointment to the post of President of the
District Consumer Forum is prescribed in Rule 6 of the Rules. The Rule 6
is extracted below for ready reference:-
“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;
(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.
12
(4) The process of appointment 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.
13
(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 prejudicially affect his functions as a President or
member.
23. Under Rule 6(8) and (9), the Selection Committee is given the
liberty to prescribe the criteria for shortlisting of eligible applicants and
formulate the procedure for recommendation after taking into account the
suitability, record of past performance, integrity and adjudicatory
experience. In the present case, in the process of shortlisting of
applicants for interview, the Selection Committee having liberty to
formulate the procedure for recommendation had sought for antecedent
report from the State Government as a criteria for shortlisting the
applicants for interview and thereupon recommended candidates after
taking into account their suitability, record of past performance, integrity
and adjudicatory experience.
24. The scope of the State Government under Rule 6(11) is to verify
the antecedents and credentials of the recommended candidates i.e. to
examine whether recommended candidates suffer any disqualification
prescribed in Rule 5. The Rule 5 reads as under:
14
5. Disqualification for appointment of President or member of
State Commission and District Commission. – A person shall be
disqualified for appointment as the President or a member of a
State Commission or District Commission if he–
(i) has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for an
offence which involves moral turpitude; or
(ii) has been adjudged to be insolvent; or
(iii) is of unsound mind and stands so declared by a competent
court; or
(iv) has been removed or dismissed from the service of the State
Government or Central Government or a body corporate owned or
controlled by such Government; or
(v) has, in the opinion of the State Government, such financial or
other interest as is likely to prejudicially affect his functions as the
President or a member.
25. The above extracted Rule has facets of eligibility as well as
suitability. The Rules 5 (i),(ii),(iii) and (iv) are aspects of eligibility and
matters of fact, whereas Rule (v) falls in the domain of suitability and a
matter of opinion.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Registrar General, High
Court of Madras Vs R. Gandhi and Others explained the distinction
between eligibility and suitability as under;
“As stated above, “eligibility” is a matter of fact whereas
“suitability” is a matter of opinion.”
15
26. There would not be any issue for bypassing the recommendations
in the order of merit of the Selection Committee if the individuals
recommended suffer from disqualifications under Rule 5 (i), (ii), (iii) and
(iv) of the Rules as they would be documented and are aspects of
eligibility.
27. The grey area in Rule 5 is the sub-rule(v) which is quite
uncontrolled and enables the State Government to examine the
suitability and integrity of the recommended candidates even though
the said function is the exclusive domain of the Selection Committee
under Rule 6(9) of the Rules as stated above.
28. It is to be noted that aspects prescribed in Rule 5(v) come under
“Suitability” and within the scope of the Selection Committee as
recognised in parallel legislations. The Section 85 of the Electricity Act,
2003 provides for selection of Chairperson and members of the Electricity
Regulatory Commission. As per Section 85, a Selection Committee will
be constituted for selection of Chairperson and members and the
mandate of the Selection Committee under Section 85(5) is verbatim
similar to Rule 5(v) of the Rules. The Section 85(5) of the Electricity Act,
2003 reads as under:
“(5) Before recommending any person for appointment as the Chairperson or other Member of the State
Commission, the Selection Committee shall satisfy itself that such person does not have any
financial or other interest which is likely to affect prejudicially his functions as such Chairperson or
Member, as the case may be.”
16
29. Ideally, the Rule 5(v) should have been included in Rule 6 of the
Rules within the exclusive scope of Selection Committee. Coming back,
in the event, the State Government after receiving the antecedent report
is of the opinion that candidate ranked No.1 in the order of merit is not
suitable, there would be a conflict of opinion vis-a-vis suitability and
integrity of the recommended candidates. The superimposed opinion of
the State Government on suitability and integrity gives scope for
favouritism and allied allegations apart from tilt in the balance in favour of
the State in making appointments to judicial posts.
30. Prior to the formulation of the present Rules, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in State of Uttar Pradesh And Others vs. All Uttar Pradesh
Consumer Protection Bar Association5 had appointed a Committee
presided by Justice Arijit Pasayat to examine the shortcomings in the
functioning of the Consumer Forums. The said Committee inquired
extensively regarding functioning of consumer forums in a number of
States including Telangana and Andhra Pradesh and noted the political
and bureaucratic influence in the selection of presiding members. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court after referring to the Committee’s report directed
the Union Government to frame rules regarding appointment of members
in District, State and National Consumer Forums.
5
(2017) 1 SCC 444
17
31. Initially, the Section 22E regarding appointments to National
Consumer Forum alone was introduced into the Act of 1986 under the
Finance Act, 2017. This amendment vide Finance Act, 2017 was subject
of challenge before the Constitutional Bench in Rojer Mathew vs South
Indian Bank Ltd.6. Thereafter, the Act of 1986 was repealed and
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 was introduced and the Central
Government framed Rules regarding appointments on 15.7.2020 and the
State Government also framed verbatim similar Rules under Section 102
of the Act, 2019. The above was only to narrate the purpose of the
present Rules i.e. to bear in mind the effort of the stakeholders to bring in
transparency to the selection process, so that we do not go back in time.
32. Considering this overlap of opinion regarding suitability and
integrity under Rule 5(v) and Rule 6(9) of the Rules, a workable view has
to be adopted so as to maintain the primacy to the recommendation and
avoid politico-executive overreach in the manner of appointments.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in H.S. Vankani v. State of Gujarat7 after
referring to precedents held at paragraph 48 as under:
“48. The above legal principles clearly indicate that the Courts
have to avoid a construction of an enactment that leads to an
unworkable, inconsistent or impracticable results, since such a
6
(2020) 6 SCC 1
7
(2010) 4 SCC 301
18situation is unlikely to have been envisaged by the rule-making
authority. The rule-making authority also expects rule framed by it to
be made workable and never visualises absurd results.”
33. Therefore, in cases where the Government is of the opinion that a
particular individual ranked first in the order of seniority is not considered
to be fit for appointment as Chairman/member on account of antecedent
report vis-a-vis suitability and integrity, then such a report along with
the opinion of the State Government should be placed before the
Selection Committee for reconsideration of order of merit. If the Selection
Committee after taking note of the antecedent report and the opinion of
the Government may still recommend the said individual and then the
Government is bound to appoint the individual.
34. This procedure of going back to the Selection Committee is
required in appointments of this nature, firstly for the reason, no other
service rule enables the State Government to re-evaluate the suitability
and integrity after recommendation by the Selection Committee,
secondly to avoid politico-executive overreach and thirdly to maintain
primacy to the recommendation made by Selection Committee headed by
the Chief Justice or his nominee Judge.
19
35. One exception to the above paragraph is when the recommended
candidate is facing trial in a grave offence either under IPC/BNS etc., It
would be odd for the State Government to appoint an individual adorning
the judicial post while undergoing trial in a criminal case.
36. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kavita Kamboj v. High Court of
Punjab & Haryana emphasized the requirement of consultation in the
appointment of District Judges as the High court is best placed to assess
the suitability. Though, the said case pertains to appointment of District
Judges, the paragraph 66 thereof provides for a well balanced approach
in the manner of appointments to judicial forums by ensuring primacy to
the order of merit of recommended candidates.
“66. In matters of appointment of judicial officers, the opinion of the
High Court is not a mere formality because the High Court is in the best
position to know about the suitability of candidates to the post of District
Judge. The Constitution therefore expects the Governor to engage in
constructive constitutional dialogue with the High Court before appointing
persons to the post of District Judges under Article 233.”
37. The Division Bench Judgments of Punjab and Haryana High Court
i.e. Ashish Kumar Grover and others Vs State of Punjab and others
and Urvashi Agnihotri Vs State of Punjab cited by the counsel for the
Writ petitioner though are factually in a slightly different factual scenario,
20
but the primacy of the recommendation of the Selection Committee was
upheld. The Division Bench Judgments of Kerala High Court cited above
were rendered while considering the Rules for appointment framed under
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In those Rules, the Selection
committee was headed by the Chairman of the State Consumer Forum
and a panel was recommended for appointment. There was no
requirement of order of merit in those Rules. As there is substantial
variance in the present rules, the said Judgments are not of relevance.
38. In that view, it is beyond doubt that the State Government had
exceeded the discretion to appoint President/Members of Consumer
Forum by superimposing their opinion on suitability and appointing the
Appellant. The issue is accordingly answered.
39. In the light of the above, the Writ Appeal is disposed of with the
following directions:
(i) The conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge in setting
aside G.O.Rt.No.27 dated 24.05.2022 to the extent of appellant is
upheld;
(ii) The direction to obtain fresh credentials/antecedents report
from the candidates and State Government to reconsider the same
is set- aside;
21
(iii) A Selection Committee shall be re-constituted as per the
Rules within a period of one month;
(iv) The Second antecedent report, opinion of the State
Government and any other information as sought shall be placed
before the Selection Committee for re-consideration.
(v) As the Judicial work in the concerned Consumer Forum is
affected, the above mentioned exercise shall be completed in two
(02) months time;
There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending
applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________
B. KRISHNA MOHAN, J
__________________
NYAPATHY VIJAY, J
Date: 25.04.2025
IS
22
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WRIT APPEAL NO.942 of 2024
Date: 25.04.2025
IS
[ad_1]
Source link