Quashed

V. Subba Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Nov 2024WP/7588/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the appointment order of Respondent No.2 as President of the District Commission, stating the Government failed to follow due procedure by deviating from the Selection Committee's merit-based panel. The court directed a fresh evaluation of antecedents and re-appointment of the suitable candidate within two months.

What did the court decide?

Set aside G.O.Rt.No.8 dated 03.02.2022 to the extent of Respondent No.2. Directed Respondent No.1 to obtain fresh antecedents and appoint suitable candidate within two months. Place an In-charge in th

V. Subba Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

FRIDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER i TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR ( PRESENT '

¶3

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO: 7588 OF 2022

¶5

Between:

¶6

V. Subba Reddy, S/o. V. Konda Reddy, Age 59 years Occupation:Advocale, R/o.H.No.7/477-40, N.G.O. Colony, Kadapa City, Y.S.R. Kadapa District. ...PETITIONER

¶7

AND

¶8

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by the Ex. Officio Secretary to Government Consumer Affairs, Food & Civil Supplies Department (CS.II) Secretariat, Amaravathi, Guntur District

¶9

Appa Abudul Rasool, S/o.Not known to the Petitioner Aged about 60 years, Occ- President of District Commission, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District.

¶10

...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in^the nature of writ of Mandamus to direct the action of the Respondent No.1 in issuing G.O.Rt. No.8 dated 03-02-2022 in respect of the appointment of the 2nd Respondent as President of District Commission, YSR Kadapa District is'concerned as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to Rule 6(9)86(10) of 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 and consequently set aside the G.O.Rt. No.8 dated 03-02-

¶11

¶12

2022 issued by the Respondent No.1 to the extent of the Respondent No.2 IS concerned and further direct the Respondent No.1 to appoint the Petitioner as President of District Commission YSR Kadapa District as per the selected Panel sent by the selection committee in terms of the Rule 6(9)and(10) of 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 in the interest of justice.

¶13

lA NO: 1 OF 2099

¶14

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated ,n the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the G.O.Rt. No.8 dated 03-02-2022 issued by the Respondent No.1 to the extent of the Respondent No.2 IS concerned pending disposal of the writ petition in the interest of justice.

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P NAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI E. SAMBASIVA

¶16

SRI E. SAMBASIVA PRATHAP, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI M. VIJAYA KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL representing SRI K. RATHANGA PANI REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

¶19

APHC010127912022

¶20

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶21

[3310]

¶22

FRIDAY ,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶23

PRESENT

¶24

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶25

WRIT PETITION NO: 7588 OF 2022

Between:

V. Subba Reddy,

...PETITIONER

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶30

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶31

1.P NAGENDRA REDDY

¶32

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶33

1.K RATHANGA PANI REDDY

¶34

2.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following:

¶35

ORDER:

¶36

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

¶37

seeking the following relief:

¶38

“ to'issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly^{oneinthenatureofWritof} Mandamus to direct the action of the Respondent No. 1 in issuing G.O.Rt.No.8, dated 03.02.2022 in respect of the appointment of the 2 nd respondent as President of District Commission, YSR Kadapa District is concerned as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to Rule 6(9) & (10) of Consumer Protection^{(Qualificationforappointment,} method of recruitment, procedure of appointment, term of office, resignation &

¶39

¶40

¶41

removal of the President and members of the State Commission & District dated oT7Z"’ 03.02.2022 issued by the Respondent No. ^ ^ ^><t^nt of the Respondent No 2 is as P eZ rnP^^'^-ner President of District Commission, YSR Kadapa District as per the selected Panel sent by the selection committee in terms of the Rule 6(9) & (10) of Consumer Protection (Qualification for appointment, method of recruitment, procedure of appointment term of office resignation & removal of the President and members of the State Commission & District Commission) Rules 2020 in the Interest of justice". 2. The precise case of the petitioner is that the 2"'^ Respondent issued notification, dated 17.03.2022 inviting the application for appointment to the post of President for various District Consumer Forums in the State of Andhra Pradesh including Y.S.R Kadapa District. The petitioner applied for the post of President. On 18.06.1998 the petitioner was selected as Assistant Public Prosecutor and got 9 years of service. Since he got qualifications for appointment to the post of President he was called for interview by the Selection Committee on 05.08.2021 and attended interview before them including others and called for antecedents. The Superintendent of Police, while verifying the antecedents called the petitioner on 06.12.2021 and enquired about his antecedents. He informed to the Superintendent of Police that a case in C.C.No.253 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class. Kadapa charged for the offence under Section 448 and 354 of IPC is pending against the petitioner due to property disputes between the family ^members. As per Rule 6(9) and (10) of 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 & District Commission) Rules 2020 (in

¶42

¶43

short ‘the Rules’) stated that pendency of the criminal case is not a ground for disqualification for appointment of President to the^{DistrictForumashehas} not been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for^an offence which involves Moral Turpitude. But the Superintendent of police opposed to recommend the name and made an endorsement while forwarding^thesame to the 1 St respondent. Assailing the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.3 of 2022 and this Court vide its order dated 06.01.2022 in I.A.No.1 of 2022 directed the 1®' respondent not to disqualify the petitioner to the post of President, District Commission on the ground of pendency of the criminal case. While the matter is being pending before this Court, the^1®* respondent issued impugned G.O.Rt.No.8, dated 03.02.2022 appointing the 2 nd respondent as President of District Commission, YSR^{KadapaDistrict,which} is contrary to Rule 6(10) of the Rules. Therefore,^{thepresentwritpetition} came to be filed. 3. Heard Mr. P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for^{thepetitioner;Mr.} E. Sambasiva Prathap, learned Additional Advocate General for the 1 St respondent and Mr. M. Vijaya Kumar, learned Senior^{Counsel,representing} Mr. K. Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel for the^{2"^respondent.}

¶44

During hearing learned counsel for the petitioner^{wouldcontendthat} j the 1®‘ respondent has no discretionary power to appoint^{theWomenMember} of District Commission. As per Rule 6 of Consumer Protection^{(Qualification} for appointment, method of recruitment, procedure of^{appointment,termof}

¶45

¶46

office resignation and removal of the President and members of the State Commission & District Commission) Rules 2020 (in short the Rules’) a Selection Committee has been constituted which consists of Senior most Sitting Judge of High Court ’ ^®c''etary. Law Department and Secretary of Consumer Affairs Food and Civil Supplies Department, who determined its procedure for making its recommendations keeping in view of the requirements and after taking into account of suitability and etc., has to recommend the panel of candidates for appointment in the order of merits for consideration of the Government.

¶47

b- It is further contended that interviews was conducted on 05.08.2021 and the selection Panel was sent immediately. After conducting the interview, the selection committee sent a Panel consisting of my name and the 2'^^ Respondent along with another person in the order of merits along with marks, Since the selection panel is in the order of merit, the 1^^ Respondent has to consider the first candidate ini the selection panel for appointment to the President of District Commission ■ But the Respondent issued G.O.Rt.No.8 dated 03.02.2022 selecting the Presidents of District commissions in the State and directed them to assume the charge. Having surprised to know the selection of the 2"“^ Respondent, he requested to furnish the marks and merit list enabling him to question the action of the 1 ODd respondent in appointing the respondent as President of District Commission YSR Kadapa District under Right to Information Act. But till date the 1»' Respondent did not furnish the information as sought by me. The Petitioner has also submitted an appeal '■ N

¶48

¶49

to the Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, but in vain. Once the information is furnished by the 1®' Respondent, the truth will be elicited that the 1^‘ Respondent committed fraud in appointing the 2"'^ Respondent by violating the Rule 6(9) & 9(10) of the4 rules, her appointment is liable to be set aside and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the 1 St meritorious St candidate in the selection panel. Therefore, the action of the 1 respondent in nd issuing impugned GO selecting and appointing the 2 Respondent as President in District Commission, YSR Kadapa District is arbitrary and illegal. 6. Whereas learned Additional Advocate General for the 1 St respondent mainly contended that the members of the screening committee interviewed the petitioner and awarded marks and call letter was sent to the petitioner to appear for final stage of interview before the Selection Committee on 17.08.2021 and he appeared on that day. The State Government after careful examination of the recommendations made by the Selection Committee and considering the antecedent reports, issued vide G.O.Rt.No.8 dated 03.02.2022 appointing 2 nd respondent as President, District Consumer Commission, YSR Kadapa and he assumed charge. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶50

Whereas, learned Senior Counsel for the 2^^^ respondent vehemently contended that she also participated in the selection process and appointed as President of the District Consumer Commission, Kadapa vide G.O.Rt.No.8, dated 03.02.2022. As per Intelligence report it is mentioned at Column No.23

¶51

¶52

that the petitioner took VRS predicting the disciplinary^{proceedingsfromthe} department for his corruption activities and as per^{ColumnNo.29mentioned} that the petitioner is not suitable for the post as^{hehadbadreputationinthe} society and collecting huge money from the culprits to help them and a criminal case is pending against him. Whereas, the profile of the 2 nd respondent is concerned, at Column No.29 shown as suitable^asheishaving good background and communication skills and mentioned no adverse remarks. Therefore, the Government considered the candidature of the 2 nd respondent appointed him as President of District Commissioner, YSR Kadapa and issued orders accordingly. Therefore, the^{writpetitionisliableto} be dismissed.

¶53

8. Perused the record.

¶54

During hearing, learned Additional Advocate General for the 1 St respondent drawn the attention of this Court with regard to procedure of appointment, which reproduced hereunder:

¶55

Procedure of appointment- (1) The President and^{membersoftheState} Commission and the District Commission shall be appointed by the State Government on the recommendation of a Selection Committee, consisting of the following persons, namely: -

¶56

(a) Chief Justice of the High Court or any Judge of the High Court nominated by him-Chairperson;

¶57

(b) Secretary in charge of Consumer Affairs of the State Government - Member;

¶58

¶59

(2) The Secretary in charge of Consumer Affairs of^{theStateGovernment} shall be the convener of the Selection Committee.

¶60

¶61

(3) No appointment of the President, or of a member shall be invalid merely by reason of any vacancy or absence in the Selection Committee other than a vacancy or absence of the Chairperson. (4) The process of appointments shall be Initiated by the State Government at least six months before the vacancy arises.

¶62

(5) If a post falls vacant due to resignation or death of a member or creation of a new post, the process for filling the post shall be initiated immediately after the post has fallen vacant or is created, as the case may be. (6) The advertisement of a vacancy inviting applications for the posts from eligible candidates shall be published in leading newspapers and^circulatedIn such other manner as the State Government may deem appropriate. (7) After scrutiny of the applications received till the last date specified for receipt of such applications, a list of eligible candidates along with their applications shall be placed before the Selection Committee. (8) The Selection Committee shall consider all the applications of eligible applicants referred to it and if it considers necessary, it may shortlist the applicants in accordance with such criteria as it may^decide. (9) The Selection Committee shall determine its procedure for making its recommendation keeping in view the requirements of the State Commission or the District Commission and after taking into account the suitability, record of past performance, integrity and adjudicatory experience. (10) The Selection committee shall recommend a panel of names of candidates for appointment in the order of merit for the consideration of the State Government. (11) The State Government shall verify or cause to be verified the credentials and antecedents of the recommended candidates. (12) Every appointment of a President or member shall be subject to submission of a certificate of physical fitness as Indicated in the annexure appended to these rules, duly signed by a civil surgeon^{orDistrictMedical} Officer.

¶63

(13) Before appointment, the selected candidate shall furnish an undertaking that he does not and will not have any such financial or other Interest as Is likely to affect prejudicially his functions as a President or member.

¶64

Learned Additional Advocate General for the 1 respondents vehemently argued that according to Rule 6 of the Rules, 2020 mainly deals

-V

with Selection Committee, Method of Recruitment, Procedure for appointment etc.. According to Rule 6, the President and Members of the State and the District Commissions shall be appointed by the State^Government on the recommendations of a Selection Committee consisting of the following persons namely:

¶69

Chief Justice of the High Court or any Judge of the High Court nominated by him (Chairperson).

¶70

Secretary In-charge of Consumer Affairs of the State Government (Member).

¶71

Nominee of the Chief Secretary of the State (Member).

¶72

The said Selection Committee shall determine its procedure for making its recommendation keeping in view of the requirements^oftheState Commission or the District Commission and after taking into account the suitability, record of past performance, integrity and adjudicatory experience. The Selection committee shall recommend a panel of names of candidates for appointment in the order of merit for the consideration of the State Government and after verification of credentials and antecedents, the Government appoint the member of the Commission. Accordingly the Government issued G.O.Rt.No.8, dated 03.02.2022 appointing the 2 nd respondent as President, District Commission, YSR Kadapa^District.

¶73

It is further contended by the learned Additional Advocate General for the 1®‘ respondent that in view of the above said procedure, as there was a duty cast upon the State Government to obtain physical^{fitnesscertificateand}

¶74

¶75

also undertaking before giving appointment orders and informed to submit the said documents to the office and after submission of the same, the appointment orders were issued to the selected candidates.

¶76

Learned counsel for the unofficial respondent has relied on a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in "Mani Subrat Jain and Others V. State of Haryana and Otherswherein it was held that

¶77

The initial appointment of District Judges under Article 223 is within the exclusive jurisdiclion of Ihe Government after consultation with the High Court. The Governor is not bound to act on the advice of the High Court. The High Court recommends the names of persons for appointment. If the names are commended by the H,gh Court it is not obiigatory on Ihe Governor to accept Ihe recommendation. Nor is Ihe Governor obliged to give reasons lor not accepting the recommendations. ’’

¶78

Further, in “P. Panduranga Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh”^, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows:-

¶79

It would be convenient to read once again Article 233 of the Constitution: “(1) Appointments of persons to be, and the posting and promotion of, District Judges in any State shall be made by the Governor of the State in consultation with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such State.

¶80

(2) A person not already in the sen/ice of th4e union or of the State shall only be eligible to be appointed a district judge if he has been for not less than seven years as Advocate or a pleader and is recommended by the Hihg Court for appointment”. As pointed out at p.89 by this Court in "Chandra Mohan v. State of U.P"

¶81

(1977) 1 see 486 '(1975) 4 see 709

¶82

¶83

There are two sources of recruitment namely, (i) service of the union or the State, and (ii) members of the Bar. The said Judges from^thefirst source^are appointed in consultation with the High Court and those from the second source are appointed on the recommendation of the High^Court. 8. A candidate for direct recruitment from the Bar does not become eligible for appointment without the recommendation of the High Court. He becomes eligible only on such recommendation under clause (2) of Article 233. The High Court in the judgment under appeal felt some difficulty in appreciating the meaning of the word “recommended”. But the literal meaning vien in the Concise Oxford Dictionary is quite simple and apposite. It means “suggest as fit for employment”. In case of appointment from the Bar it is not open to the Government to choose a candidate for appointment until and unless his name is recommended by the High Court. ”

¶84

Therefore, a candidate for direct recruitment from the bar does not become eligible for appointment without the recommendation of the High Court. He becomes eligible only on such recommendation under clause (2) of Article 233. In this regard the literal dictator meaning of “recommend” is quite simple and apposite viz., “suggest as fit for employment” as per decision cited supra.

¶85

Learned Additional Advocate General for the 1®* respondent relied on a decision of the High Court of Kerala in "State of Kerala and Another v. K. Reghu Varma and Others’’^, wherein the Hon’ble Division Bench of Kerala High Court held as follows;-

¶86

■8. ,..For making the appointment from among the list of candidates recommended, the appointing authority is not bound to follow the order indicated by the Selection Committee since the Selection Committee is not

^ AIR 2010 Kerala 28

vested with such a power. That apart, being the subjective choice of the appointing authority no reason need by given also.

¶91

True, the expression 'recommendation’ is not defined in the Act. But the lexical meaning of the word is “to put forward with approval as being suitable for a purpose or role; advise as a course of action; advise to do something’, 'Recommendation" means 'a suggestion or proposal as to the best course of action ”

¶92

Learned Additional Advocate General for the 1®' respondent drawn the attention of this Court with regard to Rule 6(12) and 6(13) of the Rules, 2020, which reproduced hereunder:-

¶93

¶94

Before appointment, the selected candidate shall furnish an undertaking that he does not and will not have any such financial or other interest as it likely to affect prejudicially his functions as a President or member”.

¶95

Learned Additional Advocate General for the 1®‘ respondent vehemently argued that the Selection Committee shall determine its procedure for making its recommendation keeping in view of the requirements of the State Commission or the District Commission and after taking into account the suitability, record of past performance, integrity and adjudicatory experience. The Selection committee shall recommend a panel of names of candidates for appointment in the order of merit for the consideration of the State Government and after verification of credentials and antecedents, the Government appoint the member of the Commission. Accordingly the

¶96

¶97

¶98

Government issued G.O.Rt.No.8, dated 03.02.2022 appointing the 2 nd respondent as Woman Member, District Commission. YSR Kadapa 19. It is the contention of learned Senior Counsel for the 2"^^ respondent that the petitioner is not competent to hold the post of a President of the District Consumer Commission, Kadapa in view of C.C.No.253 of 2018 is pending against the petitioner. Before considering the case of the petitioner, the Selection Committee made recommendations basing on the antecedents and credentials of the candidates and submitted to the Government for issuing appointment orders. The Government considered the all parameters and adjudicatory experience required for selection as set out under Rule 6(9) and arrived at the collective merit and issued G.O.Rt.No.9, dated 03.02.2022. In support of his contention he relied on a decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in “Registrar General, High Court of Madras v. R. Gandhi and Others’'^, wherein it was held as follows:-

¶99

[17] Be that as it may, facts and circumstances of these cases warrant examination of the issue of maintainability at the threshold. In Mahesh Chandra Gupta, this Court observed:

¶100

"39. At this stage, ive may state that, there is a basic difference between eligibility" and "suitability". The process of Judging^thefitnessof a person to be appointed as a High Court Judge falls in the realm of suitability. Similarly, the process of consultation falls in the realm of suitability. 41. The appointment of a Judge is an executive function of the President. Article 217(1) prescribes the constitutional requirement of 'consultation". Fitness of a person to be appointed a Judge of the High Court is evaluated In the consultation process.

¶101

'' 2014 LawSuit(SC) 156

¶102

¶103

One more aspect needs to be highlighted. "Eligibility" is an objective factor. Who could be elevated is specifically answered by Article 217(2). When "eligibility" is put in question, it could fall within the scope of judicial review. However, the question as to who should be elevated, which essentially involves the aspect of "suitability", stands excluded from the purview of judicial review. 44. At this stage, we may highlight the fact that there is a vital difference between judicial review and merit review. Consultation, as stated above, forms part of the part of the procedure to test the fitness of a person to be appointed is content of that consultation is beyond the scope of judicial review, though lack of effective consultation could fall within the scope of judicial review. This is the basic ratio of the judgment^{oftheConstitutional} Bench of this Court in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Assn. V. Union of India 1993 4 SCC 441 and Special Reference No. 1 of 1998, Re PRESIDENTIAL REFERENCE, 1998 1 SCC 139. In the present case, we are concerned with the mechanism for giving effect to the constitutional justification for judicial review. /As stated above, "eligibility" is a matter of fact whereas "suitability" is a matter of opinion. In cases Involving lack of "eligibility" writ of quo warranto would certainly lie. One reason being that "eligibility" is not a matter of subjectivity. However, "suitability" or "fitness" of a person to be appointed a High Court Judge: his character, his integrity, his competence and the like are matters of opinion.

¶104

The concept of plurality of Judges in the formation of the opinion of the Chief Justice of India is one of inbuilt checks against the likelihood of arbitrariness or bias. At this stage, we reiterate that "lack of eligibility" as also "lack of effective consultation" would certainly fall in the realm of judicial review. However, when we are earmarking a joint venture process as a participatory consultative process, the primary aim^ofwhich is to reach an agreed decision, one cannot term the Supreme Court Collegium as superior to High Court Collegium. The Supreme Court Collegium does not sit in appeal over the recommendation of the High Court Collegium. Each Collegium constitutes a participant in the participatory consultative process. The concept of primacy and plurality is in effect primacy of the opinion of the Chief Justice of India formed collectively. The discharge of the assigned role by each functionary helps to transcend the concept of primacy^betweenthem.

¶105

¶106

74 ..These are the norms, apart from modalities, laid down in Supreme Court Advocateson- Record Assn, and also in the judgment in Special Reference No. 1 of 1998, Re. Consequently, judicial review lies only in two cases, namely, "lack of eligibility" and "lack of effective consultation". It will not lie on the content of consultation. (See also: C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice AM Bhattacharjee^&Ors. 1995 5 see 457)

¶107

[20] Thus, it is apparent that judicial review is permissible only on assessment of eligibility and not on suitability. It is not a case where the writ petitioners could not wait till the maturity of the cause i.e. decision of the collegium of this Court. They took a premature step by filing writ petitions seeking a direction to Union of India to return the list sent by the collegium of the Madras High Court without further waiting its consideration by the Supreme Court collegium. Even after the President of India accepts the recommendations and warrants of appointment are issued, the Court is competent to quash the warrant as has been done in this case of Shri Kumar Padma Prasad v. Union of India & Ors. 1992 AIR(SC) 1213 wherein the recommendee w/as found not possessing eligibility for the elevation to the High Court as per Article 217(2). This case goes to show that that even when the President, has appointed a person to a constitutional office, the qualification of that person to hold that office can be examined in quo warranto proceedings and the appointment can be quashed. (See also: B. R. Kapur v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ann, 2001 AIR(SC) 3435.

¶108

[21] In such a fact-situation, the writ petitioners or the members of the Bar could approach Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India; or the Hon'ble Law Minister, but instead of resorting to such a procedure, the writ petitioners had adopted an unwarranted short cut knowing it fully well that on the ground of the suitability, the writ petitions were not maintainable.

¶109

Learned Senior Counsel for the 2"^^ respondent vehemently argued that in the light of the said decision, the writ petition is not maintainable and that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶110

¶111

A-

¶112

The police submitted antecedents report of the^{candidateswithout} following the statutory Circular Memo dated 15.11.2012^and created self styled formate, a model formate is shown hereunder:

¶113

PROFILE OF SRI /SMT XXXXXXXXXX

¶114

1.	Name of the Person
2.	Parentage/ spouse name
3.	Native District
	A) Temporary Address & Phone No.
	B) Permanent Address & Phone No.
4.	Date of Birth & Present age
5.	Educational Qualification
6.	Social Group & caste with category
7.	Party leanings if any
8.	Family background
9.	Marital Status- No of Children, ages, their occupation, etc.,
10.	General Reputation
	A. Personal habaits
	Good habits
	Bad habits (ii)
	B. Character
	(Good/ satisfactory/ bad) C. Conduct
	(Good/ satisfactory/ bad)
11.	Positions held m) Past; n) Present
12.	Career in brief (Brief academic and personal history)
13.	Integrity (Good/ doubtful/ corrupt) Please furnish the details clearly, if kno\A/h
14.	Allegations if any
15.	Involvement in criminal, controversial activities. etc.,
16.	Positive aspects
17.	Negative aspects
18.	Whether he has capacity to be tough the control the organization.
19.	Whether he earned respect/ high opinion of the colleagues/ students, etc.,
20.	Has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for an offence which involves moral turpitude
21.	Has been adjudged to be insolvent
22.	Is of unsound mind and stands to declared by a competent court
23.	Has been removed or dismissed from the

¶115

¶116

	service of the state government or central government a body corporate owned or controlled by such government
24.	Has, in the opinion of the State Govt., such financial or other interest as is likely to prejudicially affect his functions as the President or a member
25.	He has more than one wife living
26.	She marries knowingly a person having a wife; and
27.	He is dismissed from service by any high court, government and statutory or local authority
28.	He/ she directly or indirectly influences the recruitment authority by any means for his candidature.
29.	Suitability to hold the post (Clearly mention the category and also the reasons for suitability) a. Highly suitable, b. Suitable
	c. Notsuitable.

¶117

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the police instead of following the Circular Memo dated 15.11.2012, submitted self styled formate and submitted antecedents twice with an intention to accommodate the unofficial respondent. Therefore, the antecedents’ reports submitted by the police cannot be looked into and same is illegal, which has no legal sanctity. In view of the same, the writ petition is liable to be allowed.

¶118

As per Circular Memo vide Cir.Memo No.132/SC.B/A1/2012-I, General Administration (SC.B) Department, dated 15.11.2012, wherein at Clause 4, reads as foiiows;-

¶119

"4. All the Departments in Secretariat and Heads of Departments are requested to follow the revised attestation form only for verification of the Character and antecedents of the candidate. The other guidelines/ instructions issued in the memo. cited shall hold good and are hereby reiterated”

¶120

¶121

¶122

ATTESTATK>ril fORM
rfw CMliiUArt it«usi>nic»f «1» fiu tee THf,B<iiiw LMIW.1 iioioor
fCMM WfHt miI'HtH OWK MAWtJ ^‘assffOft ii7^
P^c<o|>-apH th
>::and»S3t)ir
»«Ai«Of THe
OCWiSTMCNT (UflM ATth* HtOd
eflht Otpi.
•wjf. PkMM hdut* H'lttw ftflM ■iiiiitf/draped m
mnHMK
Hkvm
quMn^entsctMlmt* |:rtK»dj end»i« eapiMiHihii^ docu«Mfms
[
l» «-£•# wdrtini
HI Qtiwcs i«Krajitm«:»« E»S«ivk»mM ] ^mpauicnots
1L tittank
»tou»/^|»ftTOnt/FUt no. * >¥»«<«< b. l^il»1tm»^l^1
fcw»'i‘f Apa»lrn«rtt
St^Mt a R>oad
MaodHI/Tjfcjt □
Tomn/atif □
Otsixm
srara
An CcKjcr
CoflUrt Phoft# Nmrit^n Mobii Umjltn* of£ci» UMlIHdl l!»5ld»t1CA
tft STD Codrt (Wth STD CQOP^
10 rt «i|pJnaajf a fstident a
PakMan. lha -^ks^ wm
OoBsinicwAidthdiawfli!#
mijfatidntolBidlaniajfen

¶123

¶124

2:.
Adtfr®,, at ftdl
From To tl.e., K*tHoMte/AfutnavenvHai»b«r)
(MtmOVTtear) (Month/Tear) *Wilee Station and
Strce«.^C,<rfoijy and: Hoad Dfetritt
\’lUiii^, Maiidtkl and
DlstrtcvCltyJ
1.
2.
3.
4,
5.
4. FSithcr fl dctaiJs t
a) Name ot MJ with aJiasca, if auy
b) Pfofesston
0 If m scrvloe. gi^ desigt,aton and
official addrm
d) I'Veisent ]x«Ial address (If dead
give last address! House
bane Natnc "
Street & Road
viUagciMandal
Dlsst
Stale
PIN Code
c) f'crnianenl House Address
House No.
l-ane Name
Sfreet & Rrad
WIlage/Mand^
DIst
Slate
5. Hi NaltonaJity of: PIN Oade
FSliier [
fb) Modier
fe) Wife/Husbtmd
(UI Place of Blrtli of V/lfeWusband
1

%
/

. 3

6 (a) Date of birth of the applUstni

¶129

(b) Present Age

¶130

¶131

¶132

la) Place ofWrth, DlsU’lct atid Stale

¶133

(bl District and Slate to which you belong

¶134

8 (aj Rehgfon

¶135

lb! Are you member of Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe / Backvrard Class ?
Scheduled Caste SdtedtUed Tribe Backward Class

¶136

Please speedy the dassiTribc Grade A, B, C, D ai E

¶137

¶138

Educaltowl Qualtflcsuons sltowlng plscol of education years conges ^ce 15th year of age (PJcMe enclose oerttfied copies 8^ CcTtlflc^ s»d InCUcte wheUier study Is regular or distance^{/correspondence).}

¶139

Ooune	name of the Sohooh' College vUh full aSliRtfa (VUlagc/Maistal/ DlsIilcVOi^]	Dstaot entaetag tmenlliMi loonOiiii year]	Datear (roaotlon monlhA y«*r)	KumlasUoo pexwta vlUl Ref. K«. eta., titom* of Ok group l.e., ImiM/ Di:gree/Dlplo™K' PO.etc)	Police OUdon aad IHatcict
1. SSCf MoiriooUaoo
2. lt!termedt«t«' pIpSemR
3, GradiMUon' Profewlflcud Course
t. Post Orsdtiailion
B. ftnjr oilier qriaUtlcaUon

¶140

10 Ifyou have at of the doBumen	time any tsl. Per	been empl iod	oyed, give details. (Mea ftiUAddress ofthe	se certifled ^copic) tta« you been at any timedlsDilaacd/
DeotgnaUon of Post IkW or description ofwork	man	lb	OfflM, Firm or lasUtubon	ftmovtd arwri aemcr / resign^ lodw post ? If 00. please upte details.

Have you ever been, arreated by the police, convicted^{byaCourtoftawor} dct43lncd under any state / central prevcndvc detention^{lawsforanyoffence?} Whether such conviction sustained In the Court of Appeal^{orsetasidebythe} Appellate Court tf appealed a^lnat. fffcite! If detained, convicted, debarred ete. »ut»e({uas«^{totheooDiplcOonandavboiiastonol} this form the detalhi should b« cormniuvlcated tramedlately^{WtheconcernedDepartmentor} the authority ot whom the Atteatatlon Form has bee^{sentearlJa:,a»Um;casscmaybe,tatllna} which It will be deemed ot be nuppressUm of factual^{Information1.IftheaaswerIsTe»',diefoil} particulars of the convlctton. sentencea and detention^{shouldbegtven.}

¶146

12 Name and complete address of two responsible persons^{of your localityId whom} you are known or two referees to whom you arc known.^{(peraoiiBshallnotbe}

¶147

blood relatives)

¶148

Referee-l Referce-2
House^'AparUnenl/
Flat No.
Name of Apts./
Complex
Lane Name
Street & Road
VUlage
MandalTaluk
TOwn/Clty
District
State
Pin Code

¶149

13 Have you ever been member/worker of any Political Party^orCommunal organlzattmVYbuth.'Studcnt/Servlce/Labour? If so furnish^details

' %

-:5

PEgLARATlON 8B0yt>p flg signed bythf, cANnmi^Trr

¶154

1, I hereby declare tiiat the statements made in this form are true to the best of my

¶155

knowledge and belief,

¶156

lam married / unmarried and have only one wife Uvlng (delete which is not applicable). 3. 1 ^ fu% aware that furnishing of false information^{orsuppressionofanyfactual} information in the Attestation Form would be a disqualification and la likely ot render

¶157

me unfit for employment under the Government.

¶158

I am also fully aware that If It comes to notice at any time during my service that false

¶159

Information has been furnished or that there has been suppression of factual

¶160

Information in the Attestation Fbrm. my services would be liable ot be terminated solely

¶161

on this ground.

¶162

Date : Place ;

¶163

Signature of the Candidate

¶164

¶165

CBBTIFfCATC TO W SIGNBD BY A GAZETTED OFFICER OR mn OF LEGISI.ATTO OR OTHER AyTHORTTY AS PRgSCRIBED by the APPQ AUTHORITY

¶166

CcrUfled that 1 have known Sri /Sral. / Kum.

¶167

Son / Daughter / Wife of

¶168

for the last years months and to tlie best of my knowledge and belief^the

¶169

particulars furnished by him / her arc correct.

¶170

Date : Place;

¶171

(Signature)

¶172

Name & Designation with Seal

¶173

Ph.otograph of the candidate attested by Gazetted Officer/MLA/ other wltli seal Competent Authority

¶174

¶175

¶176

No doubt, the respondents have not followed the Circular Memo dated 15.11.2012, while inviting antecedents from the selected candidates and created form/ profile for getting antecedents, which contains no signature of the authority and not binding and lacks legal sanctity as discussed supra.

¶177

Before considering the case of the petitioner, the Selection Committee made recommendations basing on the antecedents and credentials of the candidates and submitted to the Government for issuing appointment orders. The Government considered the all parameters and adjudicatory experience required for selection as set out under Rule 6(9) and arrived at the collective merit and issued G.O.Rt.No.8, dated 03.02.2022 and he drawn the attention of this Court with regard to Rule 6(12) and 6(13) of the Rules, 2020, which reproduced hereunder:-

¶178

"12. Every appointment of a President or member shall be subject to submission of a certificate of physical fitness as indicated in the annexure appended to the rules, duly signed by a civil surgeon or District Medical Officer. 13. Before appointment, the selected'candidate shall furnish an undertaking that he does not and will not have any such financial or other interest as it likely to affect prejudicially his functions as a President or member”:

¶179

As per Rule 4 of the Rules clearly shows the qualification and eligibility for the post of President and Member of the District Commission that a person shall not be qualified for appointment as President, unless he is or has been, or is qualified to be a District Judge. Therefore, evidently, a person ‘qualified to be a District Judge’ is qualified to be appointed as President. The

¶180

¶181

• 'V.

¶182

Phrase ‘Qualified to be” does not necessarily mean^{thattheindividualsshould} be actively engaged in the profession at the time of consideration. If the candidate was once qualified to hold a position, he is deemed to remain .qualified even if they are no longer practicing at the moment of appointment process. Therefore, questioning the appointment of the 2"^^ respondent in the instant case is unwarranted as contended by learned counsel for the respondents. 27. It is a fact that the Selection Committee consists of three persons namely Hon’ble Judge of High Court, Secretary in-charge^{ofConsumerAffairs} of the State Government and Law Secretary of the State, who recommended the names of the candidates for final appointment after obtaining necessary antecedent reports from the police. It is only option for the government to issue appointment orders to the selected candidates basing on recommendations made by the selection committee, but not interfering with the recommendations made by them. The Selection Committee have placed the names of the candidates as per merit shown as 1, 2 and 3. The duty cast upon the government only to issue appointment order^{tothe-firstmeritorious} person after getting antecedents and credentials report obtained by the police. If antecedent report is adverse to the first meritorious candidates, then automatically shall consider case of the second meritorious candidate for appointment for the respective post. But in the instant case, it vitiates, basing on police report i.e credentials/ antecedents report, the government played vital role in appointing the unofficial report without following due procedure as

¶183

¶184

contemplated under law. In view of limited purview of the government, the government cannot act beyond the recommendations made by the Selection Committee without any deviation. Further, it is very clear that the government has no authority to question or interfere with the recommendations made by the Selection Committee. In the instant case, the government without following due procedure, while obtaining antecedents report and also adopted pick and choose method, which is impermissible in law. The decisions relied by the learned Additional Advocate General for the official respondent relates to procedural aspects while issuing appointments, jurisdiction and role of the Government, which are prior to amendment of the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, the same is not applicable in the instant case. Therefore, impugned order is questioned in this writ petition.

¶185

In view of the foregoing discussion, it vitiates that the 1®* respondent has not followed due procedure as contemplated under the rules, while appointing the 2"^^ respondent as President, District Commission, YSR Kadapa District. In view of the aforementioned circumstances, the impugned order vide G.O.Rt.No. 8, dated 03.02.2022 is liable to be set aside.

¶186

Therefore, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with following directions;

¶187

a) The impugned order issued by the respondent vide G.O.Rt.No. 8 dated 03.02.2022 to the extent of 2^^ respondent is hereby set aside; b) The 1 respondent is directed to obtain fresh credentials/ antecedents report from the selected candidates as per Circular Memo

¶188

¶189

No.132/SC.B/A1/2012-1, General Administration (SC.B) Department, dated 15.11.2012, within one month from the date of receipt^{ofacopyofthisorder,} c) Meanwhile, the 1 respondent is directed to place In-charge for the post of President, District Commission, YSR Kadapa^{asperprocedure} to avoid inconvenience to the proceedings of the District^Commission. d) On submission of credentials/ antecedents report^{bythepolice,the} directed to consider the same on merit basis and official respondents are any issue fresh appointment orders to the suitable candidate, without deviation, strictly adherence in accordance with law,^{withinaperiodofone} (01) month thereafter. Entire exercise shall be completed^withintwo (02) months.

¶190

With the above directions, this Writ Petition is^{disposedof.There} shall be no order as to costs.

¶191

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any,^{pendingshallstand} closed.

¶192

SD/- V.SAVITHRI GOWRI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// OFFICER

¶193

To,

¶194

The Ex. Officio Secretary to Government, Consumer^{Affairs,Stateof} Andhra Pradesh, Food & Civil Supplies Department (CS.II)^Secretariat Amaravathi, Guntur District

¶195