Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Tappa Abdul Rasool vs V Subba Reddy on 25 April, 2025
Author: B. Krishna Mohan
Bench: B. Krishna Mohan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WRIT APPEAL No.947 of 2024
Between:
Tappa Abdul Rasool, S/o Tapa Abdul Sattar,
Aged about 62 years, Presently working as
President, District Consumer Dispute
Redressal Commission,
Old Collectorate, Seven Roads,
Kadapa .... Appellant/5th Respondent
And
1. V. Subba Reddy, S/o V. Konda Reddy,
Aged about 61 years, Occupation: Advocate,
R/o H.No.7-477-40, N.G.O. Colony, Kadapa
City, YSR Kadapa District. .... 1st Respondent/Writ Petitioner
2. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its
Ex-Officio, Secretary to Government,
Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supply
Department (CS-II), Secretariat, Amavarati,
Guntur District. .... Respondent/Respondent
WRIT APPEAL No.948 of 2024
Between:
Tappa Abdul Rasool, S/o Tapa Abdul Sattar,
Aged about 62 years, Occupation: President
of District Commission, Kadapa,
YSR Kadapa District. .... Appellant/2nd Respondent
2
And
1. Kalikiri Sireesha, W/o Sri A.G. Surya
Prakash Reddy, Aged 55 years,
R/o H.No.1-2340, A.P.H.B. Colony,
Y.S.R. Kadapa. .... Respondent/Writ Petitioner
2. Union of India, Ministry of Consumer
Affairs, Food & Public Distribution,
Department of Consumer Affairs,
New Delhi, Rep. by its Secretary.
3. The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies
Department, Secretariat Buildings,
Velagapudi, Guntur, rep. by its
Principal Secretary & Others.
4. The Ex-Officio Secretary to Government,
Government of Andhra Pradesh, Consumer
Affairs, Food & Civil Supplies Department,
A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati.
5. The Superintendent of Police, Kadapa,
YSR Kadapa District. .... Respondents/Respondents
Counsel for the Appellant: Sri K. Rathangapani Reddy
Counsel for the Respondent(s): Smt. B. Neeraja Reddy and
Additional Advocate General
The Court made the following:
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WRIT APPEAL Nos.947 & 948 of 2024
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Nyapathy Vijay)
1. The present Writ Appeals are filed questioning the Orders
dated 15.11.2024 passed in W.P.Nos.7588 & 18214 of 2022 whereunder the
appointment of the Appellants as President of the District Consumer Forum,
YSR Kadapa was set-aside.
2. The parties are referred to as they were arrayed in W.P.No.18214 of
2022. This appeal was heard along with a batch of appeals and case law
was cited by the Counsel and Senior Counsel appearing for the respective
parties. As facts in each appeal are not similar, separate Judgments are
being passed addressing the contentions advanced. In these appeals,
W.P.No.18214 of 2022 is taken as lead case for description of parties and
narration of facts.
3. The introductory facts:-
A Notification was issued on 17.03.2021 by the State of Andhra
Pradesh vide Roc.No.3/DC-P/Sectt/CS-II Dept/2020 inviting applications to
fill up vacant posts of Presidents of District Commissions of Ananthapuramu,
Tirupathi, Kakinada, Rajahmundry, Guntur, YSR Kadapa, Machilipatnam,
Ongole, Srirakulam, Visakhapatnam-II, Vizianagaram, Eluru and Chittoor,
totalling to 13 vacancies.
4
4. As per the Notification, the applicants should have the qualifications
prescribed for the post of a District Judge and should be above 35 years and
below 65 years under Sections 28 to 30 of the Consumer Protection Act,
2019. The procedure for selection is that the Selection Committee shall, on
the basis of the assessment made by it in the interview and after satisfying
the eligibility criteria and after taking into account the suitability, record of
past of performance, integrity and adjudicatory experience, will recommend
a panel of names of applicants for appointment as Members/Presidents from
amongst the applicants in the order of merit for approval to the State
Government and for issuance of appointment orders to the selected
applicants.
5. In this case, the Writ Petitioner and Respondent No.5 along with one
V. Subba Reddy were shortlisted for appointment by the Selection
Committee for the post of the President of District Consumer Commission,
Kadapa. The writ petitioner was ranked No.1 in the order of merit followed by
V. Subba Reddy and Respondent No.5. However, the Respondent No.5 was
appointed by the Respondent State overlooking the Petitioner, hence the
writ petition was filed.
6. The Writ Petitioner pleaded that as per the order of merit recommended
by the Selection Committee, she was allotted 23 marks, while one V. Subba
Reddy (Petitioner in W.P.No.7588/2022) was allotted 18 marks and the
Respondent No.5 was allotted 16 marks. Since she was ranked No.1 in the
order of merit and in the absence of any doubt regarding the integrity and
5
credentials of the Writ Petitioner, the appointment of Respondent No.5 was
contrary to Rule 6 of the 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 (hereinafter referred to
The A.P. State Consumer Protection Rules, 2020 for brevity). The Writ
Petitioner further pleaded that she was appointed as Member of District
Consumer Forum, Kadapa in the year 2009 vide G.O.Ms.No.7, CS, F & Civil
Supplies (CS.II) Department issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh on
26.02.2010 in accordance with Rules in vogue at that point of time.
7. The Writ Petitioner further pleaded that she was put in FAC of the post
of President in District Consumer Forum, Kadapa on account of retirement of
the then President. Though the term of the Writ Petitioner ended in the year
2015, the term was extended and she continued as Member of the District
Consumer Forum upto 02.03.2020. As per the petitioner, there were no
allegations against her at any time nor any doubt regarding the integrity and
therefore the appointment of Respondent No.5 cannot be sustained and that
the same is contrary to Rule 6 of The A.P. State Consumer Protection Rules,
2020. The Petitioner placed reliance on a report submitted by then
Superintendent of Police vide C.No.1358/VR-SB/KDP/2021 to substantiate
her plea that there are no adverse remarks in that antecedent report.
8. The case of the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.7588 of 2022 is that he
should be appointed as he was standing at Sl.No.2 in the order of merit
6
rather than the Appellant/Respondent No.5. It was further pleaded that
disqualification under Rule 5(i) of the Rules will not be attracted as criminal
case against him is at the stage of trial. It was further pleaded that he had
vast experience, and criminal case filed out of family disputes should not be
a ground for rejection of his candidature.
9. The Respondent-State in its Counter Affidavit defended the
appointment on the ground that it was made on the basis of antecedent
reports. It was further pleaded that the State Government considered the
parameters i.e. suitability, integrity, record of past performance etc., as set-
out in Rule 6(9) and arrived at collective merit and appointed Respondent
No.5. However, no explanation was forthcoming regarding the antecedent
report submitted by then Superintendent of Police vide C.No.1358/VR-
SB/KDP/2021 wherein nothing adverse was noted against the Petitioner.
Further, there was no denial of the plea of the Petitioner regarding the order
of merit recommended by the Selection Committee.
10. The Respondent No.5 filed his Counter Affidavit relying entirely on the
antecedent report against the Writ Petitioner, which was obtained by V.
Subba Reddy (Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.7588 of 2022) which appears to be
furnished after the recommendation by the Selection Committee, wherein the
integrity of the Writ Petitioner was stated to be doubtful, said to be favouring
the community she hailed from and was not considered suitable for the said
post. The Respondent No.5 justified his selection on the basis of this
antecedent report only.
7
11. The learned Single Judge after referring to Rule 6 of the Consumer
Protection Rules, 2020 held that the antecedent report relied on by the
Respondent No.5 is not in consonance with Circular Memo
No.132/SC.B/A1/2012-I, General Administration (SC.B) Department, dated
15.11.2012 and does not contain any signature of any authority, set-aside
the appointment of Respondent No.5 and the Official Respondents were
directed to obtain fresh credentials/antecedents as per the Circular Memo
dated 15.11.2012 and in the meantime, the Official Respondents were
directed to place an in-charge to avoid inconvenience to the District
Commission proceedings. The Official Respondents were directed to issue
appointment orders on the basis of the credentials/antecedents and the time
calendared for compliance was two months. Hence, the present Writ Appeal.
12. Contentions:- Heard Sri K. Rathangapani Reddy, learned counsel for
the Appellant, Smt. B. Neeraja Reddy, learned counsel for the
Respondent/Writ Petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General.
13. The counsel for the Appellant contended that the rules provide for
discretion to the State for appointment among the panel of names of
candidates recommended by the Selection Committee depending on the
antecedent report. The counsel for the Appellant emphasized on
Rule 6(11) of the Rules to substantiate his plea that the State Government
shall verify the credentials and antecedents of the candidates before issuing
appointment orders. It was contended that in this particular case the
antecedent report received against the Writ Petitioner was not satisfactory
8
and there were doubts regarding her integrity and therefore, the appointment
of the Appellant/Respondent No.5 cannot be faulted.
14. The counsel for the Appellant further contended that the Circular
Memo dated 15.11.2012 is not relevant as even assuming that the
antecedent report is contrary thereto, the same is not of much relevance
since the core content of the report was taken note by the State Government
before issuing appointment order.
15. The counsel for the Respondent/State contended that the
appointment was made after receiving the antecedent reports of the
recommended candidates and that there is no violation of any Circular
Memo. It was contended that Writ Petitioners were ineligible as per Rule 5(v)
of the Rules in view of adverse antecedent report. Further, it was contended
that the antecedent report was sent along with a covering letter by the
concerned authority to the State Government and therefore the antecedent
report cannot be said to be not in the prescribed format.
16. The counsel for the Respondent/Writ Petitioner contended that the
antecedent report relied upon by the Respondent/State is running contrary to
the antecedent report furnished by the then Superintendent of Police vide
C.No.1358/VR-SB/KDP/2021 sent to the Director General of Police, Andhra
Pradesh for verification of the antecedents of the Petitioner along with other
persons, who were shortlisted for interview to the post of President of District
9
Consumer Forum, Kadapa. As per the said report, there is no adverse
remark regarding the character and conduct of the Writ Petitioner.
17. The counsel for Respondent/Writ Petitioner further contended that a
reading of the antecedent report relied on by the Appellant and Respondent-
State shows that the same is inconsistent and wholly unreliable as the same
does not have signature of any individual verifying the correctness of the
report and that it is apparent that the antecedent report was customised to
suit for appointment of Respondent No.5.
18. The counsel relied upon Division Bench Judgment of Punjab and
Haryana High Court in Ashish Kumar Grover and Others vs. State of
Punjab and Others1, dated 15.02.2024 which was confirmed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No.11196 of 2024 dated 01.04.2024. The
other cited judgements were the Division Bench Judgment of Punjab and
Haryana High Court in Urvasi Agnihotri vs. State of Punjab 2 and the
Division Bench Judgments of Kerala High Court in State of Kerala vs.
K. Reghu Varma & Others3 and N. Premkumar vs. State of Kerala4
19. Issues:- After hearing the respective counsel, the issue that falls for
consideration is as follows:-
Whether the State Government had exceeded its scope under the
Rules in appointing President/Members of District Consumer Forum?
1
2024 LawSuit (P&H) 323
2
2024 LawSuit (P&H) 447
3
2009 SCC OnLine Ker 3620
4
2015 SCC OnLine Ker 25225
10
20. Reasoning:-
The procedure for appointment to the post of President of the District
Consumer Forum is prescribed in Rule 6 of the Rules. The Rule 6 is
extracted below for ready reference:-
“6. Procedure of appointment.–
(1) The President and members of the State 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: –
(a) Chief Justice of the High Court or any Judge of the High Court nominated
by him;
(b) Secretary in-charge of Consumer Affairs of the State Government –
Member;
(c) Nominee of the Chief Secretary of the State–Member.
(2) The Secretary in-charge of Consumer Affairs of the State Government
shall be the Convener of the Selection Committee.
(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 appointment shall be initiated by the State Government
at least six months before the vacancy arises.
(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.
11
(6) The advertisement of a vacancy inviting applications for the posts from
eligible candidates shall be published in leading newspapers and circulated
in 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 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 is
likely to prejudicially affect his functions as a President or member.
12
21. Under Rule 6(8) and (9), the Selection Committee is given the liberty
to prescribe the criteria for shortlisting of eligible applicants and formulate the
procedure for recommendation after taking into account the suitability, record
of past performance, integrity and adjudicatory experience. In the present
case, in the process of shortlisting of applicants for interview, the Selection
Committee having liberty to formulate the procedure for recommendation
had sought for antecedent report from the State Government as a criteria for
shortlisting the applicants for interview and thereupon recommended
candidates after taking into account their suitability, record of past
performance, integrity and adjudicatory experience.
22. The scope of the State Government under Rule 6(11) is to verify the
antecedents and credentials of the recommended candidates i.e. to examine
whether recommended candidates suffer any disqualification prescribed in
Rule 5. The Rule 5 reads as under;
5. Disqualification for appointment of President or member of State
Commission and District Commission. – A person shall be disqualified for
appointment as the President or a member of a State Commission or District
Commission if he–
(i) has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for an offence which
involves moral turpitude; or
(ii) has been adjudged to be insolvent; or
(iii) is of unsound mind and stands so declared by a competent court; or
13
(iv) has been removed or dismissed from the service of the State Government
or Central Government or a body corporate owned or controlled by such
Government; or
(v) has, in the opinion of the State Government, such financial or other
interest as is likely to prejudicially affect his functions as the President or a
member.
23. The above extracted Rule has facets of eligibility as well as suitability.
The Rules 5 (i),(ii),(iii) and (iv) are aspects of eligibility and matters of fact,
whereas Rule (v) falls in the domain of suitability and a matter of opinion.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Registrar General, High Court of Madras
Vs R. Gandhi and Others explained the distinction between eligibility and
suitability as under;
“As stated above, “eligibility” is a matter of fact whereas
“suitability” is a matter of opinion.”
24. There would not be any issue for bypassing the recommendations in
the order of merit of the Selection Committee if the individuals recommended
suffer from disqualifications under Rule 5 (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) of the Rules as
they would be documented and are aspects of eligibility.
25. The grey area in Rule 5 is the sub-rule(v) which is quite uncontrolled
and enables the State Government to examine the suitability and integrity
of the recommended candidates even though the said function is the
exclusive domain of the Selection Committee under Rule 6(9) of the Rules
as stated above.
14
26. It is to be noted that aspects prescribed in Rule 5(v) come under
“Suitability” and within the scope of the Selection Committee as recognised
in parallel legislations. The Section 85 of the Electricity Act, 2003 provides
for selection of Chairperson and members of the Electricity Regulatory
Commission. As per Section 85, a Selection Committee will be constituted
for selection of Chairperson and members and the mandate of the Selection
Committee under Section 85(5) is similar verbatim to Rule 5(v) of the Rules.
The Section 85(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 reads as under:
“(5) Before recommending any person for appointment as the Chairperson
or other Member of the State Commission, the Selection Committee shall satisfy
itself that such person does not have any financial or other interest which is
likely to affect prejudicially his functions as such Chairperson or Member, as
the case may be.”
27. Ideally, the Rule 5(v) should have been included in Rule 6 of the
Rules within the exclusive scope of Selection Committee. Coming back, 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.
15
28. 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.
29. Prior to the formulation of the present Rules, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in State of Uttar Pradesh And Others vs. All Uttar Pradesh
Consumer Protection Bar Association5 had appointed a Committee
presided by Justice Arijit Pasayat to examine the shortcomings in the
functioning of the Consumer Forums. The said Committee inquired
extensively regarding functioning of consumer forums in a number of States
including Telangana and Andhra Pradesh and noted the political and
bureaucratic influence in the selection of presiding members. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court after referring to the Committee’s report directed the Union
Government to frame rules regarding appointment of members in District,
State and National Consumer Forums.
30. Initially, the Section 22E regarding appointments to National Consumer
Forum alone was introduced into the Act of 1986 under the Finance Act,
2017. This amendment vide Finance Act, 2017 was subject of challenge
before the Constitutional Bench in Rojer Mathew vs South Indian Bank
Ltd.6. Thereafter, the Act of 1986 was repealed and Consumer Protection
Act, 2019 was introduced and the Central Government framed Rules
5
(2017) 1 SCC 444
6
(2020) 6 SCC 1
16
regarding appointments on 15.7.2020 and the State Government also
framed verbatim similar Rules under Section 102 of the Act, 2019. The
above was only to narrate the purpose of the present Rules i.e. to bear in
mind the effort of the stakeholders to bring in transparency to the selection
process, so that we do not go back in time.
31. Considering this overlap of opinion regarding suitability and integrity
under Rule 5(v) and Rule 6(9) of the Rules, a workable view has to be
adopted so as to maintain the primacy to the recommendation and avoid
politico-executive overreach in the manner of appointments. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court in H.S. Vankani v. State of Gujarat7 after referring to
precedents held at paragraph 48 as under;
“48. The above legal principles clearly indicate that the Courts
have to avoid a construction of an enactment that leads to an
unworkable, inconsistent or impracticable results, since such a
situation is unlikely to have been envisaged by the rule-making
authority. The rule-making authority also expects rule framed by it to
be made workable and never visualises absurd results.”
32. 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
7
(2010) 4 SCC 301
17
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.
33. 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.
34. The Hon’ble Supreme Court Kavita Kamboj v. High Court of Punjab &
Haryana emphasised the requirement of consultation in the appointment of
District Judges as it is best placed to assess the suitability. Though said
case pertains to appointment of District Judges, the paragraph 66 thereof
provides for a well balanced approach in the manner of appointments to
judicial forums by ensuring primacy to the order of merit of recommended
candidates.
“66. In matters of appointment of judicial officers, the opinion of the
High Court is not a mere formality because the High Court is in the best
position to know about the suitability of candidates to the post of District
18Judge. The Constitution therefore expects the Governor to engage in
constructive constitutional dialogue with the High Court before appointing
persons to the post of District Judges under Article 233.”
35. The Division Bench Judgments of Punjab and Haryana High Court i.e.
Ashish Kumar Grover and others Vs State of Punjab and others and
Urvashi Agnihotri Vs State of Punjab cited by the counsel for the writ
petitioner though are factually in a slightly different factual scenario, but the
primacy of the recommendation of the Selection Committee was upheld. The
Division Bench Judgments of Kerala High Court cited above were rendered
while considering the Rules for appointment framed under the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986. In those Rules, the Selection committee was headed
by the Chairman of the State Consumer Forum and a panel was
recommended for appointment. There was no requirement of order of merit
in those Rules. As there is substantial variance in the present rules, the said
Judgments are not of relevance.
36. In the present case, the marks and the order of merit recommended
by the Selection Committee are given below in the tabulated statement:
Marks Allotted in Interview Total
Sl.No. Appl. Name of Marks To be
No. the Allotted Rank recommended
Candidate Hon'ble Secretary, Secretary, in to Govt.
Judge Civil Law Interview
Supplies (Out of
30)
1. 12 Smt. Kalikiri 7 8 8 23 1 Yes
Sireesha
2. 23 Sri Vutukuru 6 7 5 18 2 Yes
Subba
Reddy
3. 42 Sri Tappaq 5 5 6 16 3 Yes
Abdul
Rasool
19
37. The second antecedent report regarding Writ Petitioner in
W.P.No.18214 of 2022 which has been relied upon by the
Appellant/Respondent No.5 as well as the State Government is riddled with
inconsistencies. The antecedent report against the Writ Petitioner shows that
as per Column No.10 (A), (B) and (C), there are no bad habits and the
character and conduct was noted to be “satisfactory”, but In Column
No.13, the integrity of the Writ Petitioner was doubted. This inconsistency in
between Column Nos.10 and 13 is quite inexplicable. This Court is refraining
from expressing opinion on the further aspects of the antecedent report.
38. In stark contrast, the first antecedent report submitted by the
Superintendent of Police, YSR Kadapa to the DGP, Mangalagiri vide
C.No.1358/VR-SB/KDP/2021 and taken into consideration by the selection
committee shows that there are no adverse remarks against the Writ
Petitioner. The portion of the report referring to Petitioner is extracted below:-
“The applicant native of Madanapalli town of Chittoor District and at
present residing at H.No.1/2340, APHB Colony, Kadapa City. She belongs
to Kapu/Reddy (OC) Caste. She studied up to B.L. and started her
profession as advocate vide Enrollment No.AP/421/1992. She practiced as
advocate under senior advocate Sri Y.Chandra Sekhar Reddy and got
experience in civil and criminal cases. She got experience about 28 years for
both civil and criminal cases. Previously she worked as member in District
Consumer Forum Commission, Kadapa during 2010-2020. She is not
20involved in any criminal cases in YSR District and there is no adverse
against her character and conduct.”
39. In the event, the State Government is having information which makes
the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.18214 of 2022 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. The issue is accordingly answered.
40. As regards the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.7588 of 2022, a criminal
case vide Crime No.258 of 2018 for offences under Sections 354 and 506
IPC was registered against him in Kadapa II Town P.S., which is pending
trial. In the writ affidavit, the Petitioner admitted that criminal case vide Crime
No.253 of 2018 is pending against him on the file of Additional Judicial First
Class Magistrate, Kadapa for offence under Sections 448 and 354 IPC. As
stated supra at paragraph 28, the Respondent-State cannot be called upon
to appoint an individual facing trial in grave offence.
41. In the light of the above, the Writ Appeals are disposed of with the
following directions:
21
(i) The conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge in setting
aside G.O.Rt.No.8 dated 03.02.2022 to the extent of appellant in
W.P.No.18214 of 2022 is upheld;
(ii) The direction to obtain fresh credentials/antecedents report from
the candidates and State Government to reconsider the same is set-
aside;
(iii) A Selection Committee shall be re-constituted as per the Rules
within a period of one month;
(iv) The Second antecedent report, opinion of the State Government
and any other information as sought shall be placed before the
Selection Committee for re-consideration.
(v) As the Judicial work in the concerned Consumer Forum is affected,
the above mentioned exercise shall be completed in two (02) months
time;
(vi) The order of learned Single Judge in W.P.No.7588 of 2022 is set-
aside.
There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending
applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________
B. KRISHNA MOHAN, J
__________________
NYAPATHY VIJAY, J
Date: 25.04.2025
IS
22
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WRIT APPEAL NOs.947 & 948 of 2024
Date: 25.04.2025
IS