Meena Verma vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh

Dipak Misra, CJI The second respondent, being grieved by the appointment of the appellant as a part time female member in the Himachal Pradesh Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, „the Commission‟), had assailed the same by way of a Writ Petition being C.W.P. No. 1571 of 2017 preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla. The High Court, by the impugned judgment and order dated 12.12.2017, quashed the Digitally signed by SUBHASH CHANDER Date: 2018.09.19 appointment of the appellant and directed the Commission to consider 16:01:51 IST Reason: the case of the writ petitioner stating, inter alia, that she is otherwise 2 meritorious and more experienced as compared to the appellant for appointment as a member in the Commission. Hence, the appeal by special leave.

2. The facts which are necessary to be enumerated are that on 25.04.2016, one post of part time female Member along with other vacancies meant for various District Fora was advertised by the Principal Secretary (Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs) of the Government of Himachal Pradesh. The advertisement stipulated the qualifications, namely, that the candidate shall not be less than 35 years of age; that she should possess a Bachelors degree from a recognized University; and that she should be a person of ability, integrity and standing having knowledge and experience of at least ten years in dealing with problems relating to economics, law, commerce, accountancy, industry, public affairs or administration. It was further mentioned therein that the part time Member so appointed shall hold office for a term of five years or up to the age of sixty seven years in the case of the Commission and sixty five years in the case of District Consumer Forum, whichever is earlier. The Selection Committee of which the President of the Commission was the Chairman held the interview on 02.07.2016 and the Committee recommended four names on the basis of the performance of the candidates for the member of the Commission. In the select list, the 3 names of the respondent no. 2 and the appellant appeared at serial nos. 2 and 3 respectively. The candidate, who obtained the highest mark, was not available for appointment, for she had already been engaged against some post in the Himachal Pradesh University. The first respondent selected the appellant as a part time member in the Commission. A representation was submitted by the second respondent on which no action was taken and, therefore, she approached the High Court for redressal of her grievances.

7. As the impugned order would show, the High Court further heard the matter and opined that the State Government had discriminated against the writ petitioner and its action is arbitrary which invites the wrath of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It further observed that it is even beyond imagination that the appellant, that is, the private respondent before the High Court, is having better public experience than the writ petitioner when the latter is senior in age as compared to the former. The High Court was of the view that a person senior in age would have better experience in all spheres of life including public experience and, therefore, the writ petitioner having enrolled as an Advocate in the year 1992 and in effective legal practice since then not only in the High Court but also in the State Administrative Tribunal and various quasi judicial authorities including the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission/District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, was certainly well versed with various social problems as compared to the private respondent who, as per the details in the documents furnished along with her application, was a post graduate in commerce and also did the Master's degree in business administration, which qualification she acquired in the year 2012. While the private respondent was studying up to 2012, the writ petitioner was in effective legal practice since 1992. The High Court observed that it was not 7 comprehensible as to what prompted the first respondent to assess her public experience to be better than that of the writ petitioner. After so saying, the High Court recorded a finding that although the Rules governing the appointment of the member in the State Commission/District Consumer Fora had not been framed by the State, yet the Rules governing the service conditions of the Government employees could be taken note of. This reason was given to justify the placement of candidates on the basis of their performance in the interview by the Commission. The High Court noted that in a case of bracketed candidates as per the Government Rules, the senior in age and rank as compared to the bracketed candidate who is junior in age is to be given priority. It further observed that though the respondent-State is making the appointment out of the empanelled candidates to the members of the Commission, yet it is bound to adhere to their merit and the pick and choose policy has no sanctity in law. It further went on to adjudge the merit of the two candidates while stating that the writ petitioner was more meritorious, regard being had to experience in academic, professional and social spheres as compared to the selected candidate. It distinguished the decision rendered by the High Court of Kerala in State of Kerala and another v. K. Reghu Varma and others1 on the ground that there is a prevalent Rule in the State of Kerala, while 1 AIR 2010 Kerala 28 8 it is not so in the State of Himachal Pradesh. Placing reliance on the decision in S. Chandramohan Nair v. George Joseph and others2, the High Court held that the principles stated therein supported the stand of the writ petitioner inasmuch as there was no justification on behalf of the State Government to select the candidate on the ground that she had more public experience.

..………………………….CJI.

September 19, 2018