Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.
Kedar Lal Gupta S/o Late Shri Jamuna Lal Gupta – Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7767 of 2020
Decided On : 17-05-2023
Consumer Protection Act 1986 - Section 10, 16 - Conclusive Evidence - Document for Human Rights - Grievance of petitioner is that in spite of recommendations made by Selection Committee State Government has not appointed petitioner as Judicial Member of Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission - Held, Case petitioner were sailing same boat were posted as President in different District Consumer Disputes Forums Selection Committee recommended names of both persons for appointment on post of Judicial Member State Commission - State accepted recommendation rejected recommendation of petitioner arbitrary discretion has been used by State in a vague and fanciful manner judgment cited and relied by respondents are not applicable present case - Petition stands allowed.
JUDGMENT :
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.
1. Grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of recommendations made by the Selection Committee, the State Government has not appointed the petitioner as Judicial Member of Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short “the State Commission”).
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner as well as one Mr. Atul Kumar Chatterjee were working on the post of President, District Consumer Disputes Forum at Jaipur and Jodhpur respectively and both participated in the process for selection on the post of Judicial Member of the State Commission along with other candidates and names of both these persons were recommended by the Selection Committee for their appointment but the State appointed Mr. Atul Kumar Chatterjee and no orders were passed for appointment of the petitioner. Counsel submits that both these persons were holding the post of President District Consumer Disputes Forum but discrimination has been caused by the State in depriving the petitioner without any justified reasons. Counsel submits that appropriate directions be issued to the State to consider the case of the petitioner for the post of Judicial Member in State Commission. In support of his contentions he has placed reliance on the following judgments:
(ii) Smt. Mithlesh Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5415/2015 decided by Rajasthan High Court on 11.8.2015
(iii) State of Rajasthan vs. Smt. Mithlesh Sharma, D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 1149/2015 decided by Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court on 3.2.2016
3. Per contra, counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner. Counsel submits that no conclusive evidence has been produced by the petitioner in support of his contentions. Counsel submits that their participation in the process for selection does not confer any right in favour of the petitioner to get appointment. He submits that mere appearance of the name of petitioner in the select list does not give any indefeasible right in his favour. In support of his contentions he has placed reliance on the following judgment:
(ii) K.H. Siraj vs. High Court of Kerala, (2006) 6 SCC 395
(iii) Madan Lal vs. State of J&K, (1995) 3 SCC 486
(iv) State of Orissa vs. Rajkishore Nanda, (2010) 6 SCC 777
(v) Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47
(vi) Asha Kaur vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir, (1993) 2 SCC 573
(vii) State of Haryana vs. Subhash Chander Marwaha, (1974) 3 SCC 220
(viii) Jatinder Kumar vs. State of Punjab, (1985) 1 SCC 122
4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record.
5. Section 16(1A) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (for short “Act of 1986”) deals with the procedure for recommendation of the Selection Committee for appointment on the post of President and Judicial Members of State Commission. As per Section 16(1A) of the Act of 1986:
(i) President of the State Commission – Chairman...” Perusal of the above provision indicates that appointment on the post of President and Judicial Member of the State Commission is done by the State Government after recommendation of the Selection Committee.
6. On asking by this court, the respondents produced the original record of the recommendations made by the Selection Committee and perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner as well as Mr. Atul Kumar Chatterjee were working on the post of President in District Consumer Disputes Forum at Jaipur and Jodhpur respectively and names of both of them were recommended by the Selection Committee for their appointment on the post of Judicial Member, but the S
SupremeToday
The Rules of 2020 were arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as they did not provide for a uniform pattern and transparency in selection, did not prescribe ....
The court clarified that the validity of a selection process cannot be solely based on shortlisting; proper assessment of candidates and adherence to procedural rules are essential.
Timely appointments to consumer commissions are essential to prevent disruption of services and protect consumer rights, as delays are arbitrary and against public interest.
The judgment reinforces the principle of judicial independence in the appointment of tribunal members, asserting that executive influence must be minimized to uphold the separation of powers and the ....
Appointment of President and Members of State and District Commission – Rule 3(2)(b), Rule 4(2)(c) and Rule 6(9) of Consumer Protection (Qualification for appointment, method of recruitment, procedur....
Mere recommendations in the selection process do not confer a right to appointment; the state exercises discretion in final appointments based on administrative necessity.
The court holds that it cannot interfere with the selection made by the Selection Committee unless there is arbitrariness or statutory aberration. The court emphasizes the importance of maintaining t....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
