Back
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Kedar Lal Gupta S/o Late Shri Jamuna Lal Gupta – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
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 i
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
