Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 206 (RAJ)

Mangal Chand Taylor v. State of Rajasthan

2000-02-17

ARUN MADAN, SHIVARAJ V.PATIL

body2000
JUDGMENT 1. - In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondent no.1 to carry out the recommendations made by the Selection Committee in the month of January, 1999 and appoint him as President, District Consumer Forum and to declare the recommendations of the Selection Committee made on 21.10.1999 relating to the District Consumer Forums of Hanumangarh, Karauli, Dholpur, Kota, Sawaimadhopur, Bhilwara and Banswara, as void and illegal. 2. The petitioner is a judicial Officer in the cadre of District Judge. During the year 1998, 8 posts of the Presidents in various Districts including at Kota fell vacant, The Registrar of the State Commission, Consumer Redressal, Jaipur requested the Registrar of the High Court to forward the names of the District Judges for being appointed as President for the eight District Forums. The Registrar of the High Court by his letter dated 13.10.1998 addressed to all the District Judges including the petitioner, asked them to intimate whether they were willing to join as Presidents of the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forums on deputation and, if willing, to send consent alongwith the preferences of choice for the vacant District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forums. The petitioner by his letter dated 18.11.1998 expressed his willingness to join as President, District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum on deputation at Kota. Thereafter, on 20.1.1999, the petitioner addressed a letter to the Registrar, State Commission, Consumer Redressal, Jaipur stating that the post of the President at Consumer Forum No.2, Jaipur had fallan vacant, which otherwise was not available, when he had earlier opted for Kota. In the same letter, he has stated that his option for Kota may be deemed for Jaipur Consumer Forum No.2 only. 3. In the month of January, 1999, the Selection Committee under section 10(1A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act') selected 8 candidates for being appointed as Presidents of 8 District Forums, out of 11 candidates. 4. The State Commission turned down the request of the petitioner for Jaipur Consumer Forum No.2 by its letter dated 27.1.1999 and stated that he has been selected as President of the District Consumer Forum, Kota. However, no appointment order was issued. 5. The petitioner states that the respondent no.1 was under an obligation to issue formal order of appointment to the petitioner accepting the recommendations of the Selection Committee made under section 10(1A) of the Act. However, no appointment order was issued. 5. The petitioner states that the respondent no.1 was under an obligation to issue formal order of appointment to the petitioner accepting the recommendations of the Selection Committee made under section 10(1A) of the Act. The President of the State Commission retired in February, 1999 and the new President took over charge in the month of June, 1999. The petitioner further states that his selection was made when some other party i.e. Bhartiya Janata party was in power. Besides, the Government wanted to post some one else as President, District Consumer Forum, Kota and the new President also wanted to accommodate his persons. Therefore, the Government for extraneous consideration and ulterior motive scrapped the recommendations of the earlier Selection Committee and directed the President, State Commission to make fresh selections. The fresh selections were made by the Selection Committee on 21.10.1999. Hence, the writ petition is filed for the reliefs stated above. 6. The respondents have filed a detailed reply resisting the claim made by the petitioner in the writ petition and have sought for dismissal of the same, contending that the officers were not selected in respect of particular District Forum; from Annexure-3, it is dear that the officers gave their choice and it was open to the respondents to post them to any District Consumer Forum; the petitioner never informed that he did not want to press for Jaipur Forum, after changing his option from Kota to Jaipur; the recommendations made by the Selection Committee under section 10(1A) of the Act is only recommendatory in character and the same is not binding on the State Government; it was not obligatory on the part of the State Government to issue formal order of appointment to the petitioner to a particular District Forum. It is the further case of the respondents that the recommendations made by the Selection Committee in January, 1999 were turned down by the State Government on 30.4.1999, as the recommendations of the Selection Committee were found to be sketchy; it was not clear from the report that what procedure was adopted for selections and that how many applicants were there, from which selections were made; thereafter, directions were issued to fill up the posts immediately. It is also pointed out that when earlier selections of petitioner and others were made in the month of January, 1999, the Congress Party had already come in power and it was not correct to say that Bhartiya Janta Party was in power when the selection of the petitioner was made earlier; the allegations made against the Government and the President of the State Commission that for extraneous consideration and ulterior motive, the selections made earlier were scrapped, are not correct. It is further submitted by the respondents that these allegations are baseless and no material particulars are given. It is the specific case of the respondents that the petitioner, after selection, had no vested right of appointment and once the Government has turned down the recommendations of the Selection Committee on valid ground, the petitioner cannot make any grievance; the petitioner has no vested right to be appointed to the post of President of the District Consumer Forum, Kota and, as such, the writ petition is misconceived. It is further submitted by the respondents that fresh selections were made selecting 13 District Judges out of 37, who were found fit by the Selection Committee for being appointed as Presidents of the District Consumer Forums: no specific District Forum was assigned to any of the selected candidates at the time of their selections; after the recommendations of the Selection Committee were accepted by the State Government, particular place/District Forum was assigned to the selected candidates; when the petitioner was not appointed as President of the District Consumer Forum, Kota, the question of cancelling his appointment or violating the principles of natural justice did not arise. It is also submitted that the decision relied upon by the petitioner in the case of (1) Asha Kaul (Mrs.) and another V/s State of Jammu and Kashmir and others, ( 1993(2) SCC 573 ) is not applicable to the facts of the present case, especially when the recommendations made by the earlier Selection Committee were turned down as a whole and the Selection Committee was directed to undertake fresh selections. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner in his arguments reiterated the averments made in the writ petition. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner in his arguments reiterated the averments made in the writ petition. He drew our attention to Section 10 of the Act to contend that the selections were made by the Statutory Committee and such selections could not have been scrapped; on the other hand, the selections so made should have been accepted; the respondents were not justified in not accepting the recommendations of the Selection Committee and going for fresh selections, without any reason and arbitrarily. He strongly relied on the decision in (2) A.P. Aggarwal V/s Government of N.C.T. of Delhi and another, JT 1999(9) 3 SC 125) , in support of his submission that accepting the recommendations of the Selection Committee was not mandatory, but discretionary, even then, the Government ought to have acted in the manner which would promote the object for which the power was conferred. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the decision in (3) R.S. Mittal V/s Union of India (1995 Supp(2) SCC 230) , and submitted that though a person on the select panel has no vested right to be appointed to the post, he has a right to be considered for appointment and at the same time, the Appointing Authority cannot ignore the select panel on its whims; there has to be justifiable reason to decline appointment to the person, who is in the select list. He also cited the decision in (4) Ashish Handa V/s Hon'ble the Chief Justice of High Court of Panjab and Haryana and others, ( AIR 1996 SC 1308 ) . 8. The learned Advocate General pointed out to para 13 of the reply to state that the petitioner gave up his choice for Kota Forum and opted for Jaipur Forum only. 8. The learned Advocate General pointed out to para 13 of the reply to state that the petitioner gave up his choice for Kota Forum and opted for Jaipur Forum only. The learned Advocate General submitted that merely because the petitioner's name was in the select list prepared in January, 1999, he did not get any vested right to be appointed; neither details nor particulars of malafides are given in the writ petition except making vague allegations; the State Government did not accept the recommendations made earlier by the Selection Committee and took the decision seeking for fresh selections in the month of April, 1999 itself; it is not a case of pick and choose; the entire select list prepared earlier was discarded and fresh selections were made; the reasons are also recorded for not accepting the selections made earlier. He further submitted that the persons, who are selected in the fresh selections for Kota or Jaipur Forum are not impleaded in the writ petition; on this ground itself, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. He further submitted that the decision relied upon by the petitioner in the case of Asha Kaul (Mrs.) and anr. V/s State or Jammu and Kashmir and ors. ( 1993(2) SCC 573 ) does not support the petitioner. 9. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 10. The facts that are not disputed are that the petitioner earlier gave his choice for being appointed as President of the District Consumer Forum, Kota; subsequently, he changed his option and preferred Jaipur Forum only; the Selection Committee did not recommend the name of the petitioner for appointment as President, District Consumer Forum, Kota; earlier selections made by the Selection Committee in January, 1999 were not accepted by the State Government and the same were rejected in April, 1999 with the direction to make fresh selections; the select list prepared earlier did not have any validity period; it is well settled position of law that merely because the name of the candidate is included in the select list, he does not get any vested right for appointment; the petitioner himself changed his option from Kota to Jaipur Forum; he has not impleaded the candidates selected in the fresh selections for Kota or Jaipur Forum. 11. 11. This Court granted interim order on 28.10.1999 to the effect that the respondent no.1 State Government shall not make any appointment in regard to President for District Consumer Forum, Kota. As already noticed above, the petitioner himself gave up his choice for Kota and opted for Jaipur Forum. 12. The case of A.P. Aggarwal (supra) does not help the petitioner. In that case, the Selection Committee recommended the panel of two persons for filling up the vacancy of one Member; the appellant was in the second position; the person in the first position appointed by the Government resigned within six months; the Government Office Memorandum specified that in such exigencies where the vacancy is caused within six months of appointment, the next person in the panel, recommended by the Selection Committee to be appointed in the vacancy; but, in deviation of the Memorandum, fresh advertisement was issued over-looking the claims of the appellant. In those circumstances, on the facts of that case, particularly having regard to the Memorandum, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that even if the Memorandum is considered to be discretionary and not mandatory, the Government ought to act in the manner which will promote the object for which the power was conferred and that in the absence of any valid reason for ignoring the appellant, launching a fresh process of selection was not correct. In the case of hand, there is no such requirement or specification as in the Office Memorandum in the aforementioned case. Moreover, the selections made earlier were rejected by the State Government for the reasons stated and ordered for fresh selections, that too within a period of three months. It is also not a case of pick and choose.13. The case of its. Mittal aforementioned also does not advance the case of the petitioner, inasmuch as, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 10 of the judgment has dearly stated that a person on the select panel has no vested right to be appointed to the post for which he has been selected; he has a right to be considered for appointment; but, at the same time, the Appointing Authority cannot ignore the select panel or decline to make appointment on its whims. It was a case where there was no justification to ignore the selections made by the Selection Board; there has been a mere inaction on the part of the Government for a considerable time. The facts of the present case are entirely different. The earlier selections were not accepted and within a period of three months, fresh selections were ordered, for the reasons stated.14. The case of Ashish Handa (supra) deals with the power of the President of the State Commission and the proper procedure of consulting the Chief Justice of the High Court and that the Chief Justice of the High Court should initiate the proposal and mention the names of approved persons. The said decision does not support the case of the petitioner in relation to the appointment to the District Consumer Forum.15. The case of Asha Kaul (supra) also does not help the petitioner. That was a case of pick and choose. Even in the case, it is stated that mere inclusion in the select list does not confer upon the candidates included therein an indefeasible right to appointment; of-course, there is obligation on the part of the Government to act fairly.16. In the present case, neither there is any material nor particulars to say that the State Government acted unfairly or arbitrarily. The petitioner has not impleaded other candidates selected in the fresh selections and to be posted/posted either to Kota or Jaipur Forum. As already noticed above, the petitioner himself opted for Jaipur Forum giving up his choice made earlier for Kota Forum. The interim order granted by his court, as already stated above, is only in relation to appointment to the District Forum, Kota.17. For the reasons stated and the discussion made above, in our view, this writ petition is devoid of any merit. It is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed.Petition Dismissed *******