Case: MEENA VERMA Vs. THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

Advocate General for the respondent no. 1-State and Mr. Amit Singh Chandel, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2.9. There is no dispute that the first respondent has not framed any Rules for the purpose of selection. In S. Chandramohan Nair (supra), a two-Judge Bench was dealing with a situation wherein the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala had allowed the writ petition and quashed the appointment of the appellant therein as the member of the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. This Court referred to the Rules, namely, Kerala Consumer Protection Rules, 2005 and opined:-?17. 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 2 (2010) 12 SCC 687 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.?Further, adverting to the facts, the Court observed:-?19. While deciding Writ Appeal No. 968 of 2007, the Division Bench of the High Court was unduly influenced by the fact that the Chairman of the Selection Committee had initially recorded dissent and at the end of the minutes he separately appended a note suggesting that there was no difference of opinion between him and two members and concluded that name of the appellant was recommended only by the Chairman and not by the members. It appears that attention of the Division Bench was not drawn to the affidavit filed by Smt Sheela Thomas in Writ Petition No. 13058 of 2006 wherein she had categorically averred that a panel of three names including that of the appellant was recommended to the State Government and the difference of opinion was only on the candidature of Shri K.V. Thomas. We have no doubt that if the learned counsel appearing for the parties had properly assisted the Division Bench of the High Court, it may not have recorded the observation that the name of the appellant was recommended only by the Chairman and not by the members.20. That apart, be that as it may, we are convinced that the name of the appellant had been recommended by entire body of the Selection Committee i.e. the Chairman and the members. If this was not so, either of the two members would have, after coming to know of the minutes recorded by the Chairman, lodged a protest or sent communication to the State Government that they had not recommended the name of the appellant and that the minutes recorded by the Chairman did not reflect the actual recommendations. However, the fact of the matter is that neither of them lodged any objection nor sent any communication to the State Government. Therefore, the contrary observations made by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 968 of 2007 cannot but be termed as erroneous and the same could not have been relied upon for quashing the appointment of the appellant.?10. In the case at hand, the appellant and the respondent no. 2 have obtained equal marks. The State Government chose to appoint the appellant who was at serial no. 3 on the foundation that she had better public experience. In S. Chandramohan Nair (supra), the Rule had conferred power on the Government to select any one of the candidates from the panel by ascribing reasons. The Court was of the opinion that the case of the appellant therein was arbitrarily ignored and, accordingly, it dislodged the judgment and order of the High Court.11. In the instant case, the Selection Committee has observed:-?On the basis of the performance of the candidates, we recommend appointment of following candidates as Members of the State Commission and various District Fora, out of the following panels, drawn separately, for each vacancy: Female Member, H.P. State Consumer Commission: Sr. No. Name Marks scored1. Dr. Karuna Machhan 14/202. Ms. Sunita Sharma 11/203. Smt. Meena Verma 11/204. Smt. Yogita Dutta 10/20?12. On a perusal of the same, it is noticeable that the Committee was presided by the President of the Commission and the other members were Principal Secretary (FCS&CA) to the Government of H.P. and Principal Secretary (Law) to the Government of H.P. The Committee had used the phraseology ?On the basis of the performance of the candidates?. The panel was drawn for the female members. It had placed the respondent no. 2 at serial no. 2 and the present appellant at serial no. 3. As it appears, the Committee had drawn the list in accordance with performance and, therefore, the respondent no. 2 was more suitable than the appellant. The State Government, while issuing the notification, had not ascribed any reasons. However, as is seen from the records produced before the High Court, the Principal Secretary had given a note that the ?present appellant had public experience? and on that basis, the Chief Minister signed the file and the notification was issued. The matter would have been different had there been a Rule to enable the State Government to choose a person from the panel. In the absence of any Rule or any executive instruction, when the Committee had drawn a panel on the basis of performance and placed the candidates in seriatim on the basis of the said performance, we are disposed to think that the High Court correctly expressed the opinion that the addition of public experience was uncalled for.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]10. In the case at hand, the appellant and the respondent no. 2 have obtained equal marks. The State Government chose to appoint the appellant who was at serial no. 3 on the foundation that she had better public experience. In S. Chandramohan Nair (supra), the Rule had conferred power on the Government to select any one of the candidates from the panel by ascribing reasons. The Court was of the opinion that the case of the appellant therein was arbitrarily ignored and, accordingly, it dislodged the judgment and order of the High Court.On a perusal of the same, it is noticeable that the Committee was presided by the President of the Commission and the other members were Principal Secretary (FCS&CA) to the Government of H.P. and Principal Secretary (Law) to the Government of H.P. The Committee had used the phraseology ?On the basis of the performance of the candidates?. The panel was drawn for the female members. It had placed the respondent no. 2 at serial no. 2 and the present appellant at serial no. 3. As it appears, the Committee had drawn the list in accordance with performance and, therefore, the respondent no. 2 was more suitable than the appellant. The State Government, while issuing the notification, had not ascribed any reasons. However, as is seen from the records produced before the High Court, the Principal Secretary had given a note that the ?present appellant had public experience? and on that basis, the Chief Minister signed the file and the notification was issued. The matter would have been different had there been a Rule to enable the State Government to choose a person from the panel. In the absence of any Rule or any executive instruction, when the Committee had drawn a panel on the basis of performance and placed the candidates in seriatim on the basis of the said performance, we are disposed to think that the High Court correctly expressed the opinion that the addition of public experience was uncalled for.