State Govt Bound To Accept Selection Panel's Recommendation Of Appointees To Consumer Forum Despite Antecedent Report: AP High Court

A division bench of  Justice B. Krishna Mohan and Justice Nyapathy Vijay, observed,

“Therefore, in cases where the Government is of the opinion that a particular individual ranked first in the order of seniority is not considered to be fit for appointment as Chairman/member on account of antecedent report vis-a-vis suitability and integrity, then such a report along with the opinion of the State Government should be placed before the Selection Committee for reconsideration of order of merit. If the Selection Committee after taking note of the antecedent report and the opinion of the Government may still recommend the said individual and then the Government is bound to appoint the individual".

"This procedure of going back to the Selection Committee is required in appointments of this nature, firstly for the reason, no other service rule enables the State Government to re-evaluate the suitability and integrity after recommendation by the Selection Committee, secondly to avoid politico-executive overreach and thirdly to maintain primacy to the recommendation made by Selection Committee headed by the Chief Justice or his nominee Judge," it added. 

Facts:

The Court was hearing appeals against the orders passed in two writ petitions whereby, the appointment of the appellant–Tappa Abdul Rasool as President of the District Consumer Forum, YSR Kadapa, was set aside.

Initially, the State government invited applications to fill 13 vacant posts of Presidents of District Commissions. One Kalikiri Sireesha (Petitioner in W.P. No.18214 of 2022– “petitioner 1”), one V. Subba Reddy (Petitioner in W.P.No.7588/2022– “petitioner 2”), and Rasool, had secured 23, 18 and 16 marks respectively and were subsequently shortlisted for the spot of President of District Consumer Commission, Kadapa. However, despite being lower in the order of merit, the appellant was appointed to the post, overlooking the petitioners.

Aggrieved, Sireesha and Reddy individually filed petitions before the High Court challenging the appointment of the appellant. The Single Judge set aside the appointment of the appellant and directed issuance of fresh appointment orders on the basis of the credentials and antecedents of the two applicants. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the an Appeal before the division bench. 

Findings:

The court noted that Rule 6 A.P. State Consumer Protection (Qualification for appointment, method of recruitment, procedure of appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of the President and members of the State Commission and District Commission Rules,2020 prescribes the procedure for appointment.

It noted that under sub-rule (8) and (9), the Selection Committee is not only accorded the liberty to prescribe the criteria for shortlisting eligible applicants but is also authorised to further formulate the procedure for recommendation after examining the suitability, record of past performance, integrity and adjudicatory experience of the applicants. Additionally, under sub-rule (11), the State Government has to verify the antecedents and credentials of the recommended candidates and check if they suffer from any disqualifications prescribed in Rule 5.

Rule 5, which provides the mechanism for disqualification for appointment of President or member of State Commission and District Commission, has implicit in it, facets of eligibility as well as suitability. Highlighting that the aspect of suitability of the candidates constitutes a 'grey area', the Court observed,

“…in the event, the State Government after receiving the antecedent report is of the opinion that candidate ranked No.1 in the order of merit is not suitable, there would be a conflict of opinion vis-a-vis suitability and integrity of the recommended candidates. The superimposed opinion of the State Government on suitability and integrity gives scope for favouritism and allied allegations apart from tilt in the balance in favour of the State in making appointments to judicial posts. One exception to the above paragraph is when the recommended candidate is facing trial in a grave offence either under IPC/BNS etc., It would be odd for the State Government to appoint an individual adorning the judicial post while undergoing trial in a criminal case.”

In order to adopt a 'workable' view to maintain the primacy of the recommendation/s made by the Selection Committee and subsequently avoid politico-executive influence in appointments, the Court suggested that in such cases where the Government does not deem a high ranking individual fit for appointment, it should place the report along with its opinion before the Selection Committee for reconsideration. If, after taking into consideration all aspects surrounding the individual, the Selection Committee still recommends him, then the Government is bound to make his appointment.

With respect to the issues regarding Kalkiri Sireesha, the Court held,

“In the event, the State Government is having information which makes the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.18214 of 2022 (Kalkiri Sireesha) unfit for appointment pursuant to formulation of opinion under Rule 5(v) vis-à-vis suitability, the State Government should have brought it to the notice of the Selection Committee along with its opinion. The State Government could not have unilaterally superimposed its opinion regarding the suitability, which is the exclusive domain of the Selection Committee and appoint the Appellant herein in the absence of exception referred above.”

Disposing of the pleas the bench upheld the single judge's order (in writ petition filed by Kalkiri Sireesha) which set aside the government order appointing the appellant. 

It directed that the selection committee be re-constituted as per the rules within a month. It further said that the second antecedent report, opinion of the State Government and any other information as sought shall be placed before the concerned Selection Committee for re-consideration.

"As the Judicial work in the concerned Consumer Forum is affected, the above mentioned exercise shall be completed in two (02) months time," it said. 

With respect to the writ petition filed by V. Subba Reddy (W.P.No.7588/202) the court noted that a criminal case for offences pertaining to assault with intent to outrage woman's modesty and criminal intimidation were registered against him pending trial, which had been admitted by the candidate. Thus, under such circumstances where the individual was facing trial for commission of a grave offence, the State cannot be called upon to appoint him. The bench thus set aside the single judge's decision in Reddy's plea. 

Case Title: Tappa Abdul Rasool v. V. Subba Reddy

Click Here To Read/Download Order