HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR W.P. No. 4227 of 2010 DATED: 26.07.2011 Between: Mekala Narsimha Reddy .. Petitioner And A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and three others .. Respondents O R D E R:- (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) The petitioner asserts that he was appointed as Member, District Consumer Forum, Medak at Sanga Reddy by virtue of orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No. 55, dated 13.08.2004 and his tenure of five years expired on 26.08.2009. While so, it is stated that the 1st respondent issued Notification dated 22.07.2009 inviting applications from eligible candidates for the posts of Members/Lady Members of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums, Medak at Sanga Reddy and other places. The notification also indicates that it is subject to the re-appointment, if any, of eligible existing Members of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums on the basis of their performance. In pursuance of the Notification, the petitioner applied for reappointment to the post of Member, and subsequently, he attended the interview and was selected for the post. Now, it is his grievance that even though he was selected in the interview held on 19.01.2010, and his name was displayed on the Notice Board at the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the respondents have not considered his case for re-appointment to the post of Member. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking appropriate directions. The 1st and 4th respondents have filed counter affidavit contending that in terms of the decision taken by this Court in W.P. No. 448 of 2006, the record pertaining to the petitioner’s earlier performance, was placed before the Selection Committee and it was the considered view of the Selection Committee that he was not eligible for re-appointment. The three confidential reports sent by the consecutive Presidents of the District Forum, the earlier special confidential reports which are mentioned in categorical terms, and the overt acts of the writ petitioner which clearly constitute misconduct, were considered by the Selection Committee in evaluating the merits of the candidate. The writ petitioner was found to have been indulged in several acts of mis-conduct, impropriety, judicial indiscipline as detailed in Annual Confidential Reports. It is also submitted that the Selection Committee fully addressed the issue of his performance by keenly examining his confidential reports, which are found unsatisfactory. The adverse remarks found in the Annual Confidential Reports clearly make out that the writ petitioner has so abused his position as to render his continuance in office prejudicial to public interest, as postulated in Rule 6(5) (e) of A.P. State Consumer Protection Rules, 1987. In this view of the matter, the decision of the Selection Committee to reject his candidature for another term is fully justified. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that even though the petitioner is eligible for reappointment and no complaints have been lodged against him during his tenure as Member of the District Consumer Forum, the respondents, without conducting any enquiry and issuing any charge memo on the allegations leveled against him, simply rejected his candidature for reappointment to the post of Member of the District Forum, which action is arbitrary and illegal, and prays to allow the writ petition. Rule-6(5) of the A.P. State Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 (for short “the Rules”) reads as under: The State Government may remove from office, President or a member of the State Commission who:- (a) has been adjudged an insolvent, or (b) has been convicted of an offence which in the opinion of the State Government, involves moral turpitude, or, (c) has become physically or mentally incapable of action as such member, or (d) has acquired such financial or other interest as is likely to affect prejudicially his functions as a member, or (e) has so abused his position as to render his continuance in office prejudicial to the public interest: Provided that the President or a member shall not be removed from his office on the ground specified in Clauses (d) and (e) of sub-rule (5) except on an enquiry held by the State Government, in accordance with such procedure as it may specify in this behalf and find the member to be guilty of such ground. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. There is no dispute with regard to the petitioner working as a Member of the District Consumer Forum, Medak at Sangareddy and expiry of his tenure by 26.08.2009, but it is a case for consideration of his reappointment as a Member, which was rejected for the reason that his conduct was not satisfactory. Even though it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no enquiry whatsoever was conducted nor was issued any charge memo to the petitioner on the allegations made against him by the Commission, it is to be noticed that an unrebutted stand is taken by the 1st and 4th respondents in their counter affidavit that adverse remarks found in the Annual Confidential Reports of the petitioner clearly make out that the petitioner has so abused his position as to render his continuance in office prejudicial to public interest which attracts the provision of Clause (e) of Sub-Rule 5 of Rule (6) of the A.P. State Consumer Protection Rules, 1987, based on which, the Selection Committee have given their decision to the effect that the performance of the petitioner after examining his confidential reports, is found unsatisfactory. This decision of the Selection Committee, in our considered opinion, shall be binding inasmuch as the same has been given only after proper evaluation of the merits of the Members of the District Forum, and the same cannot be brushed aside. Further, the proviso to Section 6(5)(e) of the Rules clearly postulates that a Member shall not be removed from his office on the grounds specified in Clauses (d) & (e) of Sub-rule (5) except on an enquiry held by the State Government. In the instant case, the grievance of the petitioner is non-consideration of his case for reappointment to the post of Member but not removal of his service from his office and in fact he has successfully completed his tenure as Member of the District Consumer Forum. Therefore, the decision taken by the Selection Committee in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for reappointment for another term, is perfectly justified. Hence, we see no merits in this writ petition, and the same is, accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J 26.07.2011 _______________ K.G. SHANKAR, J bcj