Andhra Pradesh HC Upholds Appointment Of President Of Chittoor Consumer Forum; Says Rules Should Be Challenged, Not Appointment

A Division Bench of Justice B. Krishna Mohan and Justice Nyapathy Vijay held,

“As per Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India and as per Rule 5(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 2007 the basic criteria for appointment to the post of District Judge is that a person should have practice as an Advocate for 7 years. In this case, the Appellant, as narrated above, was practising as an Advocate in Tirupathi Courts from the year 1999 onwards till 2010 i.e. till her appointment as Member of the District Consumer Commissions, Chittoor and Kadapa as stated above. As per the above Rule, a person should be qualified or had been qualified to be appointed for the post of District Judge. The words “he is, or has been or is qualified” occurring in Section 4(1)(a) of the Rules indicates that a person, who was qualified for the post of District Judge would suffice the criteria for appointment as President/Member. The Appellant having more than 7 years of practice as an Advocate and was qualified for appointment as District Judge. Therefore, the contention of the writ petitioner that the Appellant is not qualified cannot be sustained.”

It was also argued that the post of the President was a public post where reservation should have been provided by the State, against which the Division Bench held,

“As regards the plea of reservation, the writ petitioner primarily should have questioned the rules rather than the appointment. In the absence of any challenge to the Rule, which do not provide for any reservation, the challenge to the appointment of the Appellant, which is in consonance with the Rules existing as on date cannot be sustained.”

Facts:

The Court was dealing with a Writ Appeal challenging an order dated 15.11.2024 passed by the Single Judge (impugned order), whereby the appointment of the appellant, who was appointed as President of the District Consumer Forum, Chittoor, was set aside.

Initially, the State of Andhra Pradesh had invited applications to fill up 13 vacant posts of Presidents of different District Commissions in the State. As per the eligibility criteria, the applicants were mandated to possess qualifications prescribed for the post of a District Judge and should be above 35 years and below 65 years as per Sections 28 to 30 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Further shortlisting was to be done of the eligible candidates thereafter, on the basis of an interview and after taking into account the suitability, record of past performance, integrity and adjudicatory experience of the candidates, whose names shall be further recommended to the State Government for approval and issuance of appointment order.

Smt. T. Anitha (the appellant), along with one P. Kummara Murali Mohan Reddy and Kummara Mohan (writ petitioner in the original petition) were shortlisted for the post at Chittoor and the appellant was appointed thereafter as she ranked 1st. Aggrieved by the said appointment, a writ petition was filed on the grounds that the appellant was not a practising advocate for 7 years, which made her qualifications insufficient for the post of District Judge. Additionally, it was prayed that the posts of President and Members are public posts and, therefore, the Rule of Reservation had to be applied and that the State had to take a decision by following the 100 point roster.

Vide the impugned order, the appointment of the appellant was set aside on the grounds that the antecedent report relied on by the appellant was not in consonance with Circular Memo No.132/SC.B/A1/2012-I, General Administration (SC.B) Department, dated 15.11.2012, and that it did not bear the signature of any authority verifying the correctness of the report. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the Writ Appeal.

It was the case of the appellant that she had practiced from the year 1999 onwards till March, 2010 in Tirupathi Courts, which made her eligible for the post of District Judge. Additionally, she was better placed than other candidates owing to her adjudicatory experience in Consumer Disputes and because she was ranked 1st in the order of merit. She also had no adverse remarks against her in her tenure.With respect to the question of reservation, she submitted that reservation is not mandatory and in the absence of any rule providing for reservation, her appointment cannot be questioned.

On the contrary, the writ petitioner (now respondent) reiterated that the appellant was not qualified for the position of District Judge. Additionally, it was submitted that the posts in question was a public post and reservation should be provided by the State.

Court's Findings:

The Court had to examine whether the State Government was correct in appointing the appellant as President of the District Consumer Forum, Chittoor.

As it was established that the appellant was a practicing advocate in Tirupathi Courts from the year 1999 onwards till 2010, which constituted more than 7 years of practice, her qualification for the post could not be questioned.

With respect to the plea of reservation— the Court referred to the ruling of the Supreme Court in S. Nagender vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others [2006 (4) ALD 210], where it was held that reservation is a policy decision of the State— and held that the impugned order had not considered this aspect and that the Rules, and not the appointment, should have been questioned.

Accordingly, the Writ Appeal was allowed and the impugned order was set aside.

Case Details:

Case Number: WRIT APPEAL No.978 of 2024

Case Title: Smt. T. Anitha v. Kummara Mohan

Date: 25.04.2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order