Back
rules cannot bypass merit list for Consumer Commission President
The has set aside the appointment of the President of the in Vijayawada, holding that the cannot alter the recommended by the . Justice Balaji Medamalli, presiding over a single bench, ruled that the government's role is confined to verifying credentials and, if any surfaces, it must refer the matter back to the for reconsideration.
A contest of marks and merit
The case arose from a notification issued in inviting applications for President of the District Commission in four districts of Andhra Pradesh. Petitioner , a practicing advocate with prior experience as a Member of the , applied for the Vijayawada post. He was interviewed by a headed by a High Court judge, which placed him first in the merit list with 21 out of 30 marks. The fifth respondent, Chiranjeevi Nelapudi, secured 18 marks and was ranked second.
Despite this, the issued G.O.Rt.No.39 on appointing the second-ranked candidate as President. The petitioner learned of the discrepancy only through an RTI query, after which he approached the High Court.
Limited government role under the 2020 Rules
The petitioner argued that under
, the
's recommendations are binding. He relied on
, which prescribe that the Committee shall recommend a panel in
, and the
shall only
"verify or cause to be verified the credentials and antecedents of the recommended candidates."
The , while not contesting the merit position, contended that mere inclusion in the selection list confers no to appointment. The fifth respondent further argued that the petitioner, being over 51 years, was not qualified for appointment as a District Judge and thus ineligible for the post.
Primacy of the
Rejecting these arguments, the High Court relied on a Division Bench ruling in , which had clarified that the cannot act on its own opinion regarding . The Single Judge observed:
"The selection list furnished by the
cannot be interfered with by the
. The role of the
is confined to obtaining verification of the antecedents and credentials of the recommended candidates in terms of
of the rules."
The court noted that the government had not brought any before the Committee but had simply chosen a lower-ranked candidate. This, the judge held, was contrary to the settled legal position that the appointing authority does not have from the panel.
Key observations from the judgment
“Once the has conducted such an assessment and forwarded the panel in the , the cannot independently reassess the of the candidates or make an appointment contrary to the recommendations of the .”
“If the finds some material against the candidate recommended in the , the only option left with it, is to bring the aforesaid material to the notice of the for taking appropriate action, instead of the changing the list by itself.”
“The cannot independently alter the or appoint a candidate of its choice by overlooking the recommendations of the .”
Remedy and future course
While setting aside the impugned G.O., the court did not automatically appoint the petitioner. Instead, it directed the to place its opinion, the antecedent verification report (if any), and all relevant material before the within four weeks. The Committee will then reconsider the matter and take appropriate action in accordance with law. The court clarified that even if the fifth respondent's tenure is about to end, the issue remains live for future appointments and possible extensions.
The judgment reinforces the principle that in judicial or , the assessing body's must be respected by the executive. Any perceived disqualification must be evaluated by the same Committee that judged the candidate's , not unilaterally by the government.
