Govt Can't Alter Merit List Recommended By Selection Committee, Appoint Consumer Commission President Of Its Choice: AP High Court

The case arose from a government order appointing the second-ranked candidate, arrayed as the fifth respondent, as President of the Commission, instead of the petitioner, who had topped the merit list.

Justice Balaji Medamalli held that under Rule 6(11) of the 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, the State Government's role is confined to verifying the credentials and antecedents of the candidates recommended by the Selection Committee, and does not extend to altering the order of merit.

“If the State Government finds some material against the candidate recommended in the order of merit, the only option left with it, is to bring the aforesaid material to the notice of the Selection Committee for taking appropriate action, instead of the State Government changing the list by itself,” the Court observed.

Referring to the provisions governing the roles of the Selection Committee and the State Government under the Rules, the Court said that the committee is entrusted with the responsibility of assessing the suitability of the candidates and examining the relevant eligibility criteria.

“Once the Selection Committee has conducted such an assessment and forwarded the panel in the order of merit, the State Government cannot independently reassess the suitability of the candidates or make an appointment contrary to the recommendations of the Selection Committee,” the Court noted.

The Court placed reliance on a Division Bench ruling of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Smt. Tadikonda Suneetha v. Dr. Vajrala V.L. Narsimha Rao & Others, which dealt with a similar appointment dispute. The judgment was subsequently challenged before the Supreme Court, which declined to interfere with the High Court order.

“The legal position is well settled that the scope of interference by the State Government with the recommendations made by the Selection Committee is limited to the extent provided under Rule 6(11) of the Rules. In terms of Rule 6(11) of the Rules, the State Government is required to verify the credentials and antecedents of the candidates recommended by the Selection Committee,” the Court said.

It noted that if any adverse material is found against the candidate during the verification process, then it has to be placed before the Selection Committee.

“In the event any adverse material is found during such verification, the State Government is required to place the same, along with its opinion, before the Selection Committee for reconsideration of its recommendation,” the Court observed.

The Court said that after such reconsideration, if the Select Committee reiterates its recommendation, the State Government has no option except to act upon the said recommendation and issue the appointment order.

“The State Government cannot independently alter the order of merit or appoint a candidate of its choice by overlooking the recommendations of the Selection Committee,” the Court said, holding that the government had deviated from the merit-based recommendations of the Selection Committee.

“Consequently, the appointment of respondent No.5 as President, District Commission, Vijayawada, cannot be sustained,” the Court held.

The Court set aside the appointment order, and directed the State Government to place its opinion, the antecedent verification report and other relevant material before the Selection Committee within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, enabling the Selection Committee to reconsider the matter and take action in accordance with law.

Background

The petitioner, Rayala Kiran Kumar, a practising advocate, had applied for the post of President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Vijayawada, as per the January 2022 notification. He was found eligible and was called for interview before the Selection Committee.

Later, the fifth respondent was appointed to the post vide G.O.Rt.No.39, dated 28.07.2022.

The petitioner subsequently learnt, through information obtained under the Right to Information Act, that he had secured 21 out of 30 marks and was placed first in the order of merit, whereas the fifth respondent had secured 18 marks and was placed second. The State Government overlooked the recommendations of the Select Committee and the petitioner's superior merit while making the appointment, the petitioner alleged.

The petitioner submitted that the Selection Committee is empowered to determine its procedure for making recommendations under Rule 6(9) and recommend a panel of candidates in order of merit for appointment by the State Government under Rule 6(10). On the other hand, the State Government is only required to verify or cause verification of the credentials and antecedents of the recommended candidates under Rule 6(11), and cannot alter the recommendations of the committee unless adverse remarks are found against the candidates, particularly during the verification process, the petitioner submitted.

The petitioners alleged that the Government had failed to follow the prescribed procedure and had proceeded with the selection process in violation of the Consumer Protection Recruitment Rules, 2020.

The State Government, on the other hand, requested the dismissal of the writ petition, arguing that mere inclusion of a candidate in the selection list does not confer any vested right to appointment.

Case: Rayala Kiran Kumar vs Union of India & others,

W.P.NO. 30995 OF 2024

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 198