The main legal point established in the judgment is that inclusion in the select list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment, and the Appointing Authority cannot ignore the select panel on its whims.

1. - In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondent no.1 to carry out the recommendations made by the Selection Committee in the month of January, 1999 and appoint him as President, District Consumer Forum and to declare the recommendations of the Selection Committee made on 21.10.1999 relating to the District Consumer Forums of Hanumangarh, Karauli, Dholpur, Kota, Sawaimadhopur, Bhilwara and Banswara, as void and illegal.

2. The petitioner is a judicial Officer in the cadre of District Judge. During the year 1998, 8 posts of the Presidents in various Districts including at Kota fell vacant, The Registrar of the State Commission, Consumer Redressal, Jaipur requested the Registrar of the High Court to forward the names of the District Judges for being appointed as President for the eight District Forums. The Registrar of the High Court by his letter dated 13.10.1998 addressed to all the District Judges including the petitioner, asked them to intimate whether they were willing to join as Presidents of the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forums on deputation and, if willing, to send consent alongwith the preferences of choice for the vacant District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forums. The petitioner by his letter dated 18.11.1998 expressed his willingness to join as President, District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum on deputation at Kota. Thereafter, on 20.1.1999, the petitioner addressed a letter to the Registrar, State Commission, Consumer Redressal, Jaipur stating that the post of the President at Consumer Forum No.2, Jaipur had fallan vacant, which otherwise was not available, when he had earlier opted for Kota. In the same letter, he has stated that his option for Kota may be deemed for Jaipur Consumer Forum No.2 only.

3. In the month of January, 1999, the Selection Committee under section 10(1A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act') selected 8 candidates for being appointed as Presidents of 8 District Forums, out of 11 candidates.

4. The State Commission turned down the request of the petitioner for Jaipur Consumer Forum No.2 by its letter dated 27.1.1999 and stated that he has been selected as President of the District Consumer Forum, Kota. However, no appointment order was issued.

5. The petitioner states that the respondent no.1 was under an obligation to issue formal order of appointment to the petitioner accepting the recommendations of the Selection Committee made under section 10(1A) of the Act. The President of the State Commission retired in February, 1999 and the new President took over charge in the month of June, 1999. The petitioner further states that his selection was made when some other party i.e. Bhartiya Janata party was in power. Besides, the Government wanted to post some one else as President, District Consumer Forum, Kota and the new President also wanted to accommodate his persons. Therefore, the Government for extraneous consideration and ulterior motive scrapped the recommendations of the earlier Selection Committee and directed the President, State Commission to make fresh selections. The fresh selections were made by the Selection Committee on 21.10.1999. Hence, the writ petition is filed for the reliefs stated above.

6. The respondents have filed a detailed reply resisting the claim made by the petitioner in the writ petition and have sought for dismissal of the same, contending that the officers were not selected in respect of particular District Forum; from Annexure-3, it is dear that the officers gave their choice and it was open to the respondents to post them to any District Consumer Forum; the petitioner never informed that he did not want to press for Jaipur Forum, after changing his option from Kota to Jaipur; the recommendations made by the Selection Committee under section 10(1A) of the Act is only recommendatory in character and the same is not binding on the State Government; it was not obligatory on the part of the St