Judgment : Introduction The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the Act) which initially provided for appointment of members of the District Forum established under Section 9(a) of the Act, by nomination, was amended by the Central Act No.50 of 1993. Section 10(1A) of the Act was inserted with effect from 18.6.1993. It empowers the State Government to appoint the President and Members of the District Forum on the recommendation of a selection committee consisting of the President of the State Commission The Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, and two Secretaries to the Government as indicated therein. In this legal environment two questions in these writ petitions are whether the recommendation of the selection committee under Section 10(1A) of the Act is binding on the State Government and whether a candidate seeking reappointment has any enforceable right to be appointed as a member of the District Forum. Petitioners’ case The background facts in W.P.Nos.4968 and 5061 of 2010 are as follows. The petitioners were appointed as members of respective District Fora for a period of five years. They assumed charge in August, 2004 pursuant to the orders of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.55, dated 13.8.2004. When their term was about to expire, considering their request for reappointment, the State Commission issued proceedings on 24.8.2009 permitting them to continue as members until new appointment/reappointment is finalised or until further orders whichever is earlier. On 22.7.2009 the Government issued notification inviting applications from eligible and qualified candidates for being appointed as members in the vacancies that arose. Nonetheless, both the petitioners were asked and appeared for interview by the selection committee. They were allegedly found to be meritorious and their names ought to have been recommended by the selection committee. However, their names were not sent to the Government for reappointment. They therefore filed the writ petitions seeking writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not sending their names for reappointment as illegal and arbitrary, and for a consequential direction to the respondents to send their names to the Government for the purpose of reappointment. The controversy in the other three writ petitions is slightly different. The brief summary of the facts herein is with reference to W.P.No.579 of 2012. The petitioners are law graduates. They had also practised for some time as lawyers. The controversy in the other three writ petitions is slightly different. The brief summary of the facts herein is with reference to W.P.No.579 of 2012. The petitioners are law graduates. They had also practised for some time as lawyers. They were appointed as members/lady members in the District Fora during January, 2006 for a period of five years. Their term was to end by January, 2011. In the mean while, the State Commission issued notification dated 07.12.2010 inviting applications from qualified and eligible persons for 13 (thirteen) posts of members/lady members in different District Fora. The offer inviting application is subject to reappointment of eligible existing members of the fora. Though fresh candidates are required to appear for written test and interview, the eligible existing members are required to appear only for interview whenever called for. The petitioners offered their candidature for reappointment. They appeared for interview on 08.3.2011. The selection committee recommended their reappointment for another term of five years. The Government of Andhra Pradesh vide impugned memo date 03.12.2011 informed the Registrar of the State Commission that the reappointment of the existing members can be considered where suitable and eligible fresh candidates are not available. Aggrieved by the non-acceptance of the recommendation made by the selection committee, the petitioners filed the instant writ petition. While praying for invalidation of the Government memo, they seek consequential direction to the Government to enforce recommendations made by the selection committee communicated vide letter dated 16.3.2011 of the Registrar of the State Commission. In the other two writ petitions also, the facts are similar. Government case This Court, while issuing notice before admission in W.P. No.579 of 2012, passed an interim order on 06.1.2012 directing the respondents not to issue any further notification for subject posts until further orders. The respondents 1 to 3, namely, the State of Andhra Pradesh, State Commission and the selection committee, have filed WVMP No.137 of 2012 for vacating the interim order. This application is supported by the counter affidavit of the Commissioner and Ex-Officio Secretary to Government, Consumer Affairs, Food & Civil Supplies (CS-III) Department. The reasons for issuing the impugned memo dated 03.12.2011 are contained in paragraphs 3 to 5 of the counter. They are reproduced below for ready reference. This application is supported by the counter affidavit of the Commissioner and Ex-Officio Secretary to Government, Consumer Affairs, Food & Civil Supplies (CS-III) Department. The reasons for issuing the impugned memo dated 03.12.2011 are contained in paragraphs 3 to 5 of the counter. They are reproduced below for ready reference. In reply to para Nos.5 to 9, I submit that it is a discretion of the State Government to appoint a member or to reappoint a sitting member. The word that has been used in privso to Section 10 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is that “shall be eligible”. The work “shall” denotes that it is a discretion given to the State Government by the legislature for considering the reappointment of the existing members who fulfil the qualification and other conditions for such appointment. … … I submit that the State Government in the instant case was of the view that a fair chance has to be given to other eligible candidates as well along with the sitting/existing candidates. Therefore, the State Government had issued the impugned memo stating that it was not desirable to reappoint the members when there are eligible candidates for appointment as members. Therefore the State Government had directed the selection committee to reverify and also see whether there are suitable members who can be given the chance of being appointed as members and in the event there are no such eligible members available only then the reappointment of the existing members could be considered. I submit that there is no illegality or arbitrariness in this decision taken by the State Government. … … I submit that there is no vested right which is given by the statute to the existing members to be reappointed as members, but it is only a discretion given to the State Government to reappoint them. This reappointment of the existing members has to be considered on par with the other members who had faired well in the examination and interview which was conducted by the selection committee pursuant to the notification. This reappointment of the existing members has to be considered on par with the other members who had faired well in the examination and interview which was conducted by the selection committee pursuant to the notification. As the State Government had felt that a fair opportunity was not being given to the eligible candidates who had faired well in the examination and the interview, the impugned memo was issued by the State Government requesting the selection committee to reconsider the whole exercise and see if any eligible members are there to be appointed as members for the first time, instead of considering only the existing members. While denying the contention of the petitioners that they required to be compulsorily reappointed the position of the Government insofar as the subject selections is brought out in paragraph 8 which reads as under. further submit that the State Government is yet to take a final decision on the appointments and the impugned memo was issued requesting the selection committee to propose not only the names of the eligible existing members, but also propose the names of other applicants who had faired well in the examination and interview who can be considered on par with the existing members. The writ petition is pre-matured and the apprehension of the petitioners is uncalled for and unsustainable. In fact the selection committee had usurped the power of the appointing authority by recommending only the names of the existing members excluding the other meritorious candidates to be considered on par with the existing members. The impugned memo had requested the selection committee to send the names of the other eligible candidates also to be considered on par with the existing members for making proper appointment as per the notification. (emphasis supplied) As the issue involves important policy change that might be necessary, we requested the learned Advocate General for the State to appear in the matter. With the consent of the rival counsel, we heard the matter at the interlocutory stage for final disposal. (emphasis supplied) As the issue involves important policy change that might be necessary, we requested the learned Advocate General for the State to appear in the matter. With the consent of the rival counsel, we heard the matter at the interlocutory stage for final disposal. Contentions The petitioners placed reliance on Section 10(1A), proviso to Section 10(2) of the Act and Rule 6A of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 (the Rules), and the decisions in V.Venkataiah Goud v Government of Andhra Pradesh 2000(2) ALD 63, M.Raghava Rani v Government of Andhra Pradesh AIR 2004 AP 478 (DB) : 2004 (4) ALD 454 (DB) : 2004 (5) ALT 188 (DB)and B.Durga Kumari v Government of Andhra Pradesh 2011(1) ALD 796 (DB)to support their submission that the recommendation by a duly constituted selection committee under Section 10 (1A) of the Act is binding on the Government which cannot refuse to consider recommendees for reappointment. The learned Advocate General submits that the selection committee has to send a nonbinding panel or names for appointment as members/lady members. No power is vested in the selection committee to send only one name of the existing member for reappointment, ignoring the claims of other eligible fresh candidates. Therefore, the memo issued requiring the selection committee to reconsider the matter is valid and sustainable. He placed reliance on an unreported judgment of the Division Bench in Mrs.Chukka Rachel Deva Varam v The Registrar, A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission W.P.No.448 of 2006, dated 21.7.2006, and the decisions of the Supreme Court in Director, SCTI for Medical Science & Technology v M.Pushkaran (2008) 1 SCC 448 and S.Chandramohan Nair v George Joseph (2010) 12 SCC 687 to contend that a selectee has no right to be appointed and that the recommendation of the selection committee is not binding on the appointing authority. Right to be reappointed Whether a candidate applies to a public post or an honorary post has any enforceable right to be appointed to the posts advertised? This need not detain us long. The legal position is well settled. A Division Bench of this Court to which one of us (VVSR,J) is a member, in Parige P. Sudhir v APPSC 2011 (6) ALT 240 (DB), while referring the decision of the Supreme Court in Shankarsan Dash v Union of India AIR 1991 SC 1612 ,considered this aspect of the matter. The legal position is well settled. A Division Bench of this Court to which one of us (VVSR,J) is a member, in Parige P. Sudhir v APPSC 2011 (6) ALT 240 (DB), while referring the decision of the Supreme Court in Shankarsan Dash v Union of India AIR 1991 SC 1612 ,considered this aspect of the matter. Therein it was held that an aspirant to an advertised post/position has no legal right to enforce and a candidate, who is applicant, does not acquire an enforceable right to be appointed. If it is construed that by reason of the first proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Act an existing member, who seeks reappointment for another term, has a vested right, such interpretation would be contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court. A plain language of the first proviso also does not support such interpretation. When the State Commission issued the notification inviting applications it is no doubt that thereunder applications were invited from qualified candidates subject to the reappointment of eligible members of the fora. That itself does not confer any right even if the existing members are found eligible by the selection committee. Further, it is well settled that a provision of law cannot be interpreted ignoring the law laid down by the Supreme Court nor the law can be interpreted in a manner, the effect of which would be ignoring the law laid down by the apex court (ECIL v B.Karunakar (1993) 4 SCC 727 : AIR 1994 SC 1074 ). The first proviso to Section 10(2) of the Act only confers eligibility on the existing members for reappointment. It does not ex facie confer any enforceable right for reappointment. Therefore, we hold that the petitioners in these cases have no enforceable right to be appointed to the posts advertised. Recommendation of the selection committee In all the writ petitions except W.P.Nos.4968 and 5061 of 2010, the petitioners would urge that the recommendation made by the selection committee constituted under Section 10(1A) is binding on the Government under Section 10(2) of the Act and therefore, the impugned memo is unsustainable. They would also contend that all of them were found to be eligible and recommended by the selection committee, and therefore, rejection of the recommendation without any reasons is unsustainable. As already noticed, the learned Advocate General refutes these submissions. They would also contend that all of them were found to be eligible and recommended by the selection committee, and therefore, rejection of the recommendation without any reasons is unsustainable. As already noticed, the learned Advocate General refutes these submissions. To appreciate the contention, we may quote Sections 10(2) and (3) of the Act as well as Rule 6A of the Rules. Section 10. Composition of the District Forum (1A) omitted as not relevant(2) Every member of the District Forum shall hold office for a term of five years or up to the age of sixty-five years, whichever is earlier: Provided that a member shall be eligible for re-appointment for another term of five years or up to the age of sixty-five years, whichever is earlier, subject to the condition that he fulfills the qualifications and other conditions for appointment mentioned in clause (b) of sub-section (1) and such re-appointment is also made on the basis of the recommendation of the Selection Committee. Provided further that a member may resign his office in writing under his hand addressed to the State Government and on such resignation being accepted, his office shall become vacant and may be filled by appointment of a person possessing any of the qualifications mentioned in sub-section (1) in relation to the category of the member who is required to be appointed under the provisions of sub-section (1A) in place of the person who has resigned: Provided also that a person appointed as the President or as a member, before the commencement of the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002, shall continue to hold such office as President or member, as the case may be, till the completion of his term. (3) The salary or honorarium and other allowances payable to, and the other terms and conditions of service of the members of the District Forum shall be such as may be prescribed by the State Government. Provided that the appointment of a member on whole-time basis shall be made by the State Government on the recommendation of the President of the State Commission taking into consideration such factors as may be prescribed including the work load of the District Forum. Rule6-A. Procedure for Selection of Members:-(1) Save as otherwise prescribed in sub-rule (2), the process of appointment of a member shall be initiated at least three months before the vacancy arises. Rule6-A. Procedure for Selection of Members:-(1) Save as otherwise prescribed in sub-rule (2), the process of appointment of a member shall be initiated at least three months before the vacancy arises. (2) 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. (3) A notification shall be issued in the two leading news papers, one in Telugu and another in English, calling for the application for all the posts of the Members of the District Consumer Fora as well as State Commission which are going to fall vacant before 31st December of every year. (4) The notification shall contain that the selection of candidates shall be made in consonance with the directions issued by the Government of India to keep a panel of members ready for appointment as and when the vacancy arises. (5) In the notification, it shall be mentioned that the candidates shall have to appear for written test, as prescribed by the State Government and the three top ranking candidates, shall be interviewed for selection for empanelment. (6) After scrutiny of the applications received till the last date specified for receipt of applications, a list of eligible candidates along with their applications and the merit list prepared after conduct of the written test as prescribed shall be placed before the Selection Committee constituted under the third proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. (7) The Selection Committee shall on the basis of the assessment made by it, interview the three top ranking candidates satisfying the eligibility criteria, and recommend a panel of names of candidates for appointment as Members from amongst the applicants in order of merit for the consideration of the State Government. (8) The State Government shall, before making the Appointments, verify or cause to be verified the credentials and antecedents of the candidates selected by the State Government from the panel recommended by the Selection Committee and satisfy the suitable of such candidates for appointment as Members. (8) The State Government shall, before making the Appointments, verify or cause to be verified the credentials and antecedents of the candidates selected by the State Government from the panel recommended by the Selection Committee and satisfy the suitable of such candidates for appointment as Members. (9) The list of selected candidates shall be sent to the Government for approval of the recommendations and issue of orders appointing the selected candidates as members after getting the credentials and antecedents of the proposed candidates for appointment as members. (10) Every appointment of a member shall be subject to his/her medical fitness. As per Section 10(1A) of the Act every appointment under Section 10(1) shall be made by the State Government on the recommendation of the selection committee. The President of the State Commission shall be the chairman and secretary of law department and secretary of consumer affairs department shall be other two members of the committee. The proviso to Section 10(2) only confers eligibility for reappointment on the existing members subject to such member fulfilling the qualifications and other conditions for reappointment mentioned in Section 10(1)(b) of the Act. The procedure for selection of members is contained in Rule 6A which has ten (10) sub-rules. The selection process shall be initiated at least three months before the vacancy arises. A notification shall be issued calling for the applications for all the posts of the members of the district fora as well as the State Commission which are going to fall vacant before 31st December of every year. The notification shall contain a specific mention that the selection of the candidate shall be made in consonance with the directions issued by the Government of India to keep a panel of members ready for appointment as and when the vacancy arises. The selection shall be conducted in two stages. First a written test will be conducted and the candidates in the ratio of 1 : 3 shall be called for interview. After interview, the selection committee shall send a panel of names of three top ranking candidates satisfying the eligibility criteria for appointment as members of the district fora. It is a recommendation of the selection committee for consideration of the State Government. After interview, the selection committee shall send a panel of names of three top ranking candidates satisfying the eligibility criteria for appointment as members of the district fora. It is a recommendation of the selection committee for consideration of the State Government. Ultimately it is for the State Government under sub-rules (7), (8) and (9) of Rule 6A of the Rules to make appointments of those candidates after verifying their credentials and antecedents. Therefore the language in sub-rules (7), (8) and (9) of Rule 6A of the Rules is plain enough to support the submission of the learned Advocate General that the selection committee is required to send a panel of names of three top ranking candidates for the purpose of appointment. We are convinced that if there is one vacancy in a district forum, the selection committee is required to send at least three names in the order of merit. If only one name is communicated, it is not a valid recommendation. A reading of Section 10(1A) of the Act and sub-rules (7), (8) and (9) of Rule 6A of the Rules would show that recommendation of only one candidate for one post is not binding on the State Government. Such interpretation would render Section 10(1A) of the Act which empowers the State Government to appoint the members redundant. It is an elementary principle of service law that unless the applicable statute say so, the recommendation made by the selection committee – whether statutory or not – is only advisory. It is not binding. Even where the appointing authority is required to consult the selection committee, such a thing cannot be construed as concurrence. This is well settled (H.Mukherjee v Union of India AIR 1994 SC 495 : 1994 Supp (1) 250). Even where the regulations require a selection committee to send a panel of the names, it is not incumbent for the appointing authority always to appoint the candidate placed at serial No.1 in the panel. The final selection by the appointing authority depends on various factors like the adverse record, if any, antecedents and credentials of an empanelled candidate and even extra or special qualification such a candidate possesses. The final selection by the appointing authority depends on various factors like the adverse record, if any, antecedents and credentials of an empanelled candidate and even extra or special qualification such a candidate possesses. Therefore we are not able to accept the submission of the petitioners that the recommendation of the selection committee under Section 10(1A) of the Act read with Rule 6A(7) of the Rules is binding on the Government of Andhra Pradesh. Section 16 of the Act deals with the composition of the State Commission. Section 16 (1A) is to the effect that every member of the State Commission shall be appointed by the Government on the recommendation of the selection committee, the composition of which is similar as in the case of selection committee for the selection of the members of the district fora. As the ‘member’ is defined in Section 2(jj) of the Act as to include the president and members of the National Commission, State Commission and district fora. Rule 6A of the Rules also applies to the selection and appointment of the members of the State Commission. A question arose in Chandramohan Nair as to whether the recommendation made by the selection is binding on the State Government. The question was answered in the negative and the Supreme Court laid down as follows. An analysis of these provisions shows that appointment of judicial and other members is required to be made by the State Government on the recommendation of the Selection Committee. If the Chairman and/or the members of the Selection Committee do not agree on the candidature of any particular person, then opinion of the majority would constitute recommendation of the Selection Committee. Though, the State Government is not bound to accept the recommendations made by the Selection Committee, if it does not want to accept the recommendations, then reasons for doing so have to be recorded. The State Government cannot arbitrarily ignore or reject the recommendations of the Selection Committee. If the appointment made by the State Government is subjected to judicial scrutiny, then it is duty-bound to produce the relevant records including recommendation of the Selection Committee before the court to show that there were valid reasons for not accepting the recommendation. The State Government cannot arbitrarily ignore or reject the recommendations of the Selection Committee. If the appointment made by the State Government is subjected to judicial scrutiny, then it is duty-bound to produce the relevant records including recommendation of the Selection Committee before the court to show that there were valid reasons for not accepting the recommendation. (emphasis supplied) Venkataiah Goud took the view that the Government has no absolute power either to accept or reject the recommendation of the selection committee and that an appointment has to be made only based on the recommendation of selection committee. In Raghava Rani the Division Bench held that, “the power of appointment is left to the discretion of the executive exclusively, but it shall be on the recommendation of the selection committee constituted under the Act and also subject to compliance with the eligibility criteria prescribed under the Act”. After referring to Neelima Misra v Harinder Kaur Paintal (1990) 2 SCC 746 : AIR 1990 SC 1402 and State of Rajasthan v Anand Prakash Solanki (2003) 7 SCC 403 : AIR 2003 SC 3849 the Division Bench came to the conclusion that the Government can disagree with the recommendation of the selection committee only for valid reasons and on conscious application of mind to the recommendation made. As held by the Supreme Court in Chandramohan Nair, the State Government is not bound to accept the recommendations made by the selection committee. This ratio does not leave any scope for a contra view. When the recommendation is not accepted, the Government has to record reasons and produce the records before the Court for judicious scrutiny that may be called for. We have thoroughly perused the decision in Durga Kumari. It does not support the petitioners. Therein the Division Bench took the view that the legislature provided to give one more opportunity to a member for reappointment for second time and such a person shall not be eligible for reappointment after completion of two terms. The issue before us is altogether different and therefore, the reliance placed on the said judgment is misplaced. The impugned memo gives two reasons for not confining the consideration of appointment to only the eligible existing members. The Government felt that a fair opportunity should be provided to all eligible persons and it is not desirable to reappoint the existing members when there are other eligible candidates for appointment. The impugned memo gives two reasons for not confining the consideration of appointment to only the eligible existing members. The Government felt that a fair opportunity should be provided to all eligible persons and it is not desirable to reappoint the existing members when there are other eligible candidates for appointment. These two reasons, in our considered opinion, do not suffer from any vice of arbitrariness or irrationality. There is a discernible principle in the reasons given by the Government and merely because the selection committee thought so the existing members need not be automatically appointed. No doubt the notification dated 07.12.2010 mentions that it is issued subject to reappointment of eligible existing members. It does not by itself divest the Government of plenary power, if they decide so far valid reasons – to reject the recommendation of selection committee. The communication dated 16.3.2011 from the Registrar of the State Commission informs the Government that the selection committee is pleased to recommend ten (10) persons against ten (10) vacancies in different district fora. The panel of names consisting of three members as required under the Rules was not sent. Therefore we are of considered opinion that the valid recommendation was not made. This appears to be one of the reasons which prompted the Government to send the impugned communication. Whether the Government has rejected the recommendees once for all? The counter affidavit of the Commissioner and Ex Officio Secretary to Government, in Consumer Affairs, Food & Civil Supplies department brings out the thinking of the Government in the following terms. … the Statement Government is yet to take a final decision on the appointments and the impugned memo was issued requesting the selection committee to propose not only the names of the eligible existing members, but also to propose the names of other applicants who had fared well in the examination and interview who can be considered on par with the existing members. The writ petition is pre-matured and the apprehension of the petitioners is uncalled for and unsustainable. In fact the selection committee had usurped the power of the appointing authority by recommending only the names of the existing members excluding the other meritorious candidates to be considered on par with the existing members. The writ petition is pre-matured and the apprehension of the petitioners is uncalled for and unsustainable. In fact the selection committee had usurped the power of the appointing authority by recommending only the names of the existing members excluding the other meritorious candidates to be considered on par with the existing members. The impugned memo had requested the selection committee to send the names of the other eligible candidates also to be considered on par with the existing members for making proper appointment as per the notification. (emphasis supplied) The learned Advocate General does not seriously dispute the above position. Therefore as of now the recommendations made by the selection committee have not been rejected. The Government only sent it back requesting the State Commission to forward the recommendations without ignoring the claims of the other eligible candidates (not only existing members). In that view of the matter no interference is called for, nor are we inclined to issue mandamus to the Government to appoint only the recommendees as per the letter of the State Commission dated 16.3.2011. We, therefore, request the selection committee to send a newly drawn up panel of selectees in accordance with merit; the recommendation for each post of members may contain three names including the existing eligible, suitable and qualified members in the order of merit by evolving a suitable procedure in view of the fact that existing members do not appear for the written test. When an existing member is recommended, the State Government has to verify the antecedents and credentials afresh as in the case of others. Further it would be more objective to send the information regarding the work done and conduct of the members seeking reappointment. The exercise may be completed within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. After receiving the recommendations of the selection committee, the Government shall pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks thereafter. We are constrained to stipulate time schedule having regard to the fact that the notification for these appointments was issued on 07.12.2010 and the uncertainty still lingers which does not augur well for the good governance. In W.P.Nos.4968 and 5061 of 2010, the petitioners sought a direction to the selection committee to send their names to the Government. We are constrained to stipulate time schedule having regard to the fact that the notification for these appointments was issued on 07.12.2010 and the uncertainty still lingers which does not augur well for the good governance. In W.P.Nos.4968 and 5061 of 2010, the petitioners sought a direction to the selection committee to send their names to the Government. It is petitioners’ allegation that in the interview held by the selection committee they were found to be meritorious and were to be recommended. But when the final list was sent their names were not included. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents in W.P.No.4968 of 2010 it is revealed that the selection committee found the petitioner below the standard expected for a person with experience and that he secured ‘6’ marks when the selected candidate secured ‘14’ marks. A reference is also made to the fact-finding enquiry conducted by the Registrar of the State Commission. There were certain allegations made by the advocates of Mahaboobnagar against the petitioner. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents in W.P.No.5061 of 2010 also the Registrar stated that the selection committee found the petitioner as not eligible. These averments remain uncontraverted. The reply affidavits filed by the petitioners in W.P.Nos.4968 and 5061 of 2010 do not deny securing of marks by the petitioners. Therefore, the selection committee found them as not eligible. It is now well settled that judicial review of the proceedings of the selection committee is very limited. The Court cannot substitute its view to that of the selection committee unless bias or malafides are attributed. That is not the case here. Therefore when the selection committee found these two persons as not eligible, judicial review is not called for. In the result, for the above reasons, W.P.Nos.4968 and 5061 of 2010 are dismissed. W.P.No.34329 of 2011 and W.P.Nos.106 and 579 of 2012, with the above observations and directions, shall stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.