Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Tadikonda Suneetha vs Vajrala V L Narasimha Rao 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.945 of 2024
Between:
Smt. Tadikonda Suneetha,
W/o Sri D.Umamaheswara Rao,
Aged 55 years, Practicing Advocate,
Guntur, Presently working as President,
District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, District Commission Building,
Guntur, Guntur District, A.P - 522 002. .... Appellant/Respondent No.5
And
1. Dr. Vajrala V.L. Narasimha Rao,
S/o Late Sri V.V. Appa Rao,
Aged about 56 years, R/o Flat No.301,
Samrudhi Apartments, Besides Arabindo
School and Opp. to Bank of Baroda,
Kunchanapalli Revenue Ward 12,
Tadepalli Mandal, Guntur District,
Andhra Pradesh - 522 501. .... Respondent/Writ Petitioner
2. Union of India, Ministry of Consumer
Affairs and Food and Public Distribution/
Department of Consumer Affairs,
Represented by its Secretary,
New Delhi - 110 001.
2
3. The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies
Department, Represented by its
Principal Secretary, Secretariat Buildings,
Velagapudi, Guntur District - 522 503.
4. The Ex-Officio Secretary to Government,
Government of Andhra Pradesh, Consumer
Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies
Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi,
Amaravati, Guntur District.
5. The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Represented by Secretary to Government,
Legal & Legislative Affairs and Justice
Law Department, 5 Block, First Floor,
A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati,
Andhra Pradesh - 522 503. .... Respondents/Respondent
Nos.1 to 4
Counsel for the Appellant : Sri Manoj Kumar Bethapudi
Counsel for the Respondent(s): Sri A. Bhaskara Chary 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.945 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.25348 of 2022 whereunder the
appointment of the Appellant/Respondent No.5 as President, District
Consumer Forum, Guntur 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 allotted 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 recommended candidates contrary to the order of merit vide
G.O.Rt.No.8, Consumer Affairs, Food & Civil Supplies (CS.II) Department,
Dated 03.02.2022. Hence, the Writ Petition was filed questioning the
appointment.
5
7. In this case, the Writ Petitioner questioned the appointment of
Respondent No.5/Appellant as President of District Consumer Forum,
Guntur vide G.O.Rt.No.8, dated 03.02.2022 on the ground that the Writ
Petitioner had secured highest marks and was standing first in the order of
recommendation by the Selection Committee as he was awarded 24 marks
out of 30, while the Respondent No.5 stood in second place as she was
awarded 19 marks out of 30.
8. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, the Writ Petitioner
contended that he had worked as Member of District Consumer Forum,
Ranga Reddy District (presently in Telangana State) from 03.10.2008 to
02.10.2013 and in Visakhapatnam-I District Forum (while assuming charge
as FAC President in Ranga Reddy District, Kakinada District and in
Visakhapatnam-II Forum) during the period from 03.10.2008 to 02.10.2013
and from 07.10.2013 to 06.10.2018 in two terms. The Writ Petitioner also
pleaded that he had written articles relating to Consumer Protection Act,
1986, which were published in Law Journals also. The Writ Petitioner also
contended that in the absence of any doubt regarding the credentials of the
Writ Petitioner and his integrity, the appointment of Respondent No.5 is not
in consonance with the recommendation by the Selection Committee and
Rule 6 of the Consumer Protection Rules, 2020.
9. In the present case, the order of merit for appointment of to the post of
President of District Consumer Forum, Guntur is as follows;
6 Sl.No. Appl. Name of the Candidate Marks Allotted in interview Total No. Marks Hon'ble Secretary, Secretary, allotted in Judge Civil Law Interview Supplies (Out of 30) 1. 11 Dr.V.V.L.Narasimha Rao 7 9 8 24 2. 77 Smt. Tadikonda 4 8 7 19 Suneetha 3. 48 Sri Palaparthy 4 7 6 17 Prabhakar
10. The Respondent-State filed its Counter Affidavit stating that the
appointments were made on the basis of antecedent reports and in view
of the antecedent reports and mere inclusion in the panel of
recommended candidates would not confer any right to the Writ
Petitioners to be appointed de hors the antecedent reports.
11. The Respondent No.3 filed Counter Affidavit contending that
appointment was made after considering the antecedent reports and merely
because the Writ Petitioner was awarded highest marks per se is not a
ground to consider her for appointment. The Respondent No.3 pleaded that
Respondent No.5 has possessed P.G. Diploma in Consumer Law from the
National Law University, Bangalore and that the appointment was made in
consonance with the Rules.
12. 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
7
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
credentials/antecedents and the time calendared for compliance was two
months. Hence, the present Writ Appeal.
13. Contentions:- Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Bethapudi, learned counsel for
the Appellant, Sri A. Bhaskara Chary, learned counsel for the
Respondent/Writ Petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General.
14. 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.
8
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. The counsel for Respondent/Writ Petitioner 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.
9
18. 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 Punjab 2 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
19. 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?
20. 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
2024 LawSuit (P&H) 323
2
2024 LawSuit (P&H) 447
3
2009 SCC OnLine Ker 3620
4
2015 SCC OnLine Ker 25225
10(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.
(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.
11
(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.
12
(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.
21. 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.
22. 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:
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–
13
(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.
23. 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.”
14
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. 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.”
15
27. 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.
28. 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.
29. 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
5
(2017) 1 SCC 444
16
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.
30. 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.
31. 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
6
(2020) 6 SCC 1
17
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
situation 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.”
32. 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.
33. 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
7
(2010) 4 SCC 301
18
politico-executive overreach and thirdly to maintain primacy to the
recommendation made by Selection Committee headed by the Chief Justice
or his nominee Judge.
34. 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 it 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.”
35. 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, but the
primacy of the recommendation of the Selection Committee was upheld. The
Division Bench Judgments of Kerala High Court cited above were rendered
19
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.
36. 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.
37. 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.8 dated 03.02.2022 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;
(iii) A Selection Committee shall be re-constituted as per the Rules
within a period of one month;
20
(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
21
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WRIT APPEAL NO.945 of 2024
Date: 25.04.2025
IS
[ad_1]
Source link