ORDER :

BALAJI MEDAMALLI, J.

1. This Writ Petition is filed challenging G.O.Rt.No.39 Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS.II) Department, dated 28.07.2022, whereby respondent No.5 was appointed as the President, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Vijayawada, with effect from 31.07.2022, as being arbitrary, illegal and in violation of concerned rules. The petitioner further seeks a consequential direction to the respondent No.3 to appoint him as President, District Commission, Vijayawada, in accordance with his position in the order of merit and pursuant to the recommendations of the Selection Committee.

2. Heard Sri A. Bhaskara Chary, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Tenepalli Niranjan, learned Deputy Solicitor General appearing for respondent No.1, Sri G.V. Shivaji, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 and Sri M. Delhi Babu, learned Government Pleader attached to the office of the Additional Advocate General, appearing for respondents No.2 to 4.

3. The facts of the case, as narrated by the petitioner in the writ petition, are briefly set out hereunder:

(i) Petitioner is a practicing Advocate possessing the qualifications of B.Sc., LLB., LLM., and a Post Graduate Diploma in Consumer Law and Practice. He has also undergone the training programme for ‘Presidents and Members of the District Consumer Forums’. He was enrolled as an Advocate in the year 1998 and practiced before the District Courts and other Courts at Khammam until 03.03.2010. Pursuant to the notification issued by the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (APSCDRC) inviting applications for appointment to the post of Member of the Khammam District Consumer Forum, the petitioner submitted his application, appeared for the written examination, and was selected. He was accordingly appointed as a Member of the Khammam District Consumer Forum and discharged his duties from 03.03.2010 to 03.03.2015. Upon completion of his first tenure, he was again selected and appointed for a second consecutive term and continued to serve as a Member of the said Forum until 03.03.2021. After completion of his tenure, the petitioner resumed legal practice before the Courts at Khammam.

(ii) Thereafter, pursuant to the notification dated 09.01.2022 issued by respondent No.3 inviting applications for filling up the vacancies to the posts of Presidents of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions in four districts of the State of Andhra Pradesh, the petitioner submitted his application on 20.01.2022 for appointment as the President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Vijayawada. He was found eligible and was called for interview before the Selection Committee, which was held on 28.02.2022. While the petitioner was legitimately expecting that his candidature would be considered in accordance with law and merit, respondent No.2 issued G.O.Rt.No.39, dated 28.07.2022, appointing respondent No.5 as the President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Vijayawada, with effect from 31.07.2022.

(iii) Subsequently, one of the petitioner's friends sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, regarding the marks awarded to the candidates who had participated in the selection process for the post of President, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Vijayawada. Upon obtaining the information, the petitioner came to know that he had secured the highest marks, i.e., 21 out of 30, and was placed first in the order of merit, whereas respondent No.5 had secured 18 out of 30 marks and was placed second. Despite the petitioner being the first-ranked candidate, respondent Nos.2 to 4 appointed respondent No.5 by overlooking the recommendations of the Selection Committee and ignoring the petitioner's superior merit. Thereafter, on 26.11.2024, the petitioner came to know that the High Court of Andhra Pradesh had, in similar circumstances arising out of the very same selection process, set aside t