LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

The Petitioner, Dr. Prem Lata, who appeared in-person, challenged the appointment of Mr. Rakesh Kapoor, Mr. C.K. Chaturvedi and Mr. S.N.A. Zaidi, the Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 herein, as Presidents of different District Forums, by way of Writ Petition (C) No.178 of 2011 in the Delhi High Court. In addition she prayed that while quashing the appointments of the said three Respondents, a Mandamus should issue to the State Government to appoint her as President of one of the District Fora in Delhi, with effect from 1st December, 2010, with all consequential benefits. - The Selection was done in accordance with the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and the placement of the candidates was also done by the Committee in a completely fair manner on assessment of individual performance. The first five selectees having opted to join their posts, those who were in the waiting list can have no claim for appointment in the said posts. Since the time limit for joining was extended by the State Government on account of the facts as narrated hereinabove, the joining of the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 cannot also be questioned. 10. The Special Leave Petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed, but without any order as to costs.


                             NON-REPORTABLE | |

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.29967 OF 2011



DR. PREM LATA                                … PETITIONER


           Vs.



GOVT. OF NCT DELHI AND ORS.             … RESPONDENT






                               J U D G M E N T




ALTAMAS KABIR,J.


1.    The Petitioner, Dr. Prem Lata, who appeared in-person, challenged  the
appointment of Mr. Rakesh Kapoor, Mr. C.K. Chaturvedi and Mr. S.N.A.  Zaidi,
the Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 herein, as Presidents of  different  District
Forums, by way of Writ Petition (C) No.178 of 2011 in the Delhi High  Court.
 In addition she prayed that while quashing the  appointments  of  the  said
three Respondents, a Mandamus  should  issue  to  the  State  Government  to
appoint her as President of one of the District Fora in Delhi,  with  effect
from 1st December, 2010, with all consequential benefits.

2.    The Petitioner is a member of the  District  Forum  and,  pursuant  to
advertisements published on 18th March, 2010, inviting applications for  the
post of President of five District Forums, had applied  for  appointment  as
President of  one  of  the  said  five  District  Forums  in  Delhi.   After
interviewing 63 candidates, the Selection  Committee  prepared  a  panel  in
which the Petitioner was shown as the first candidate in  the  waiting  list
in respect of Shalimar Bagh District  Forum  with  Mr.  M.C.  Mehra  as  the
selected candidate.  Mr. Rakesh Kapoor, Mr. C.K. Chaturvedi and  Mr.  S.N.A.
Zaidi, the Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 herein, were also  shown  as  selected
for the post of President for three of the remaining Districts.   The  panel
was to be valid for a period  of  one  year  and,  in  case  the  candidates
selected failed to join within 45 days of the  offer  of  appointment,  such
offer would lapse and the second and third person, as the case  may  be,  in
order of preference, would be offered the appointment.

3.    As indicated hereinabove, the Petitioner was the first alternative  in
case Mr. M.C. Mehra, who was selected, did not  join  as  President  of  the
Shalimar Bagh District Forum.  It may be noted  that  Mr.  Mehra  did  join,
within 45 days  of  issuance  of  the  appointment  letter  in  his  favour.
Consequently, the Petitioner’s chance of being appointed  as  President  for
the said District Forum came to an end.

4.    However, it was the Petitioner’s case that the Respondent Nos.4  to  6
did not join within 45 days of issuance of the  letters  of  appointment  in
their favour, and that they were subsequently  allowed  to  join,  upon  the
conditions being relaxed, but that such relaxation  was  unlawful.   It  was
also the Petitioner’s case that the  joining  of  the  said  Respondents  as
Presidents of their respective District Forums was invalid  and  was  liable
to be set  aside  and  the  Petitioner  was  entitled  to  be  appointed  as
President of one of the District Forums in the resultant vacancies.

5.    The writ petition was dismissed on the ground  that  at  the  relevant
time when the appointment letters  were  issued,  the  Respondent  No.4  was
functioning  as  the  Principal  District  &  Sessions  Judge,  Delhi.   The
Respondent No.5 was functioning as the District  Judge-II,  Delhi,  and  the
Respondent No.6 was functioning as the Additional District  Judge,  Mathura.
They had written to their respective High Courts to be relieved  from  their
respective posts so that they could join their new  posts.   A  request  was
also made on behalf of the High  Court  to  the  Lt.  Governor,  Delhi,  for
extension of time to enable the said Respondents to  join  their  respective
posts.  In the circumstances indicated,  the  Government  of  NCT  of  Delhi
extended  the  time  and,  thereafter,  the  said  Respondents   joined   as
Presidents of  the  respective  Forums  on  25th  February,  2011  and  28th
February, 2011.  The learned Single Judge held that the power to extend  the
time was within the domain of the Respondent authorities and they had  every
right to extend the time to meet the exigencies  which  had  cropped  up  in
this case.  The  Petitioner,  thereupon,  preferred  Letters  Patent  Appeal
No.518 of 2011, which was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High  Court
on 16th August, 2011, upon  reiteration  of  the  decision  of  the  learned
Single Judge.  It is against the said judgment of the Division Bench of  the
High Court that the present Special Leave Petition is being filed.

6.    The petitioner  submitted  that  the  appointment  for  the  posts  in
question is governed under Section 10(1A) of the  Consumer  Protection  Act,
1986, whereunder a Selection Committee consisting of the  President  of  the
State Commission, Secretary of the Law  Department  of  the  State  and  the
Secretary In-charge of the Department dealing with the Consumer  Affairs  in
the  State  makes  recommendations  for  selection  to  such   posts.    The
petitioner submitted that the concerned  authorities were  not  entitled  to
go beyond  the  recommendations  made  by  the  Committee  within  the  time
prescribed and since the candidates selected had  to  join  within  45  days
from the date of the receipt of the appointment letter, the respondent  Nos.
4 to 6, who had not joined within the said period, stood disqualified.   The
petitioner also contended that the  State  Government  acted  in  excess  of
jurisdiction in condoning the delay and  allowing  the  said  candidates  to
join their respective  District  Forums  beyond  the  time  specified.   The
petitioner  also  contended  that  upon   disqualification   of   the   said
respondents 4 to 6, she was entitled to be appointed  as  the  President  of
the one of the said three District Forums.

7.    In addition to the above, the petitioner also  challenged  the  manner
in which the selection  had  been  made  so  as  to  confine  the  concerned
candidates to the respective districts for which they had  been  considered.
The petitioner urged that there was no logical reason for her to  have  been
placed in the Shalimar Bagh District beyond Shri  M.C.  Mehra,  whereas  she
could have been selected for appointment in  any  of  the  other  Districts.
Urging that the entire  selection  process  was  arbitrary,  the  petitioner
submitted that the appointments of the respondent Nos. 4  to  6  after  they
had failed to join within the specified period of 45 days,  were  liable  to
be cancelled and a direction should be given to the State to appoint her  as
the President of one of the three Districts for which the  respondent  Nos.4
to 6 had been selected.

8.    On the other hand, it was urged by the  learned  Additional  Solicitor
General, Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, that the first five candidates,  who  had  been
selected for the post of the President for five District  Forums,  had  been
selected on the basis of merit, as was also  the  case  in  respect  of  the
other  candidates  kept  in  the  waiting  list.   The  learned   Additional
Solicitor General contended that, in any event, the petitioner has no  cause
for grievance since Shri M.C.  Mehra,  who  had  been  selected  to  be  the
President of the Shalimar Bagh District  Consumer  Forum,  joined  his  post
within the time specified and hence the petitioner could not claim the  post
of President for the said District Forum.  As far as the respondent  Nos.  4
to 6 are concerned, the learned ASG pointed out that they were  all  serving
in the District Judiciary when the appointment letters were issued to  them.
 As indicated hereinbefore, at the relevant point  of  time  the  respondent
No.4 was functioning as the Principal District and  Sessions  Judge,  Delhi,
while the respondent Nos.5 and 6 were functioning as the  District  Judge-II
Delhi,  and  as  the  Additional  District  Judge,  Mathura.    The  learned
Additional Solicitor General submitted that on receipt of their  appointment
letters the Respondent Nos.4 to 6  had  written  to  their  respective  High
Courts to be relieved so that they could join their new  posts.   A  request
was also made to the Lt. Governor of Delhi on behalf of the  High  Court  to
extend the time of joining to enable the  said  respondents  to  join  their
respective District Forums.  Mr. Chandhiok   submitted  that  the  delay  in
joining  their  respective  District  Forums  was  not  on  account  of  any
deliberate design on  the  part  of  the  said  respondents  to  delay  such
joining, but such delay  resulted  on  account  of  the  exigencies  of  the
situation which had been considered by the High Court and had  been  decided
in favour of the said respondents on the principle that  the  power  to  fix
the time limit also includes the power to  extend  the  said  period,  which
power was inherent in the State Government.  The learned ASG submitted  that
the selection had been done by the  Selection  Committee  constituted  under
Section 10(1A) of the Act and the petitioner could not, therefore, have  any
grievance in that regard.

9.     Having considered the submissions made by  the  petitioner  appearing
in person and the learned Additional  Solicitor  General  and  also  counsel
appearing for one of the private respondents, we see no reason to  interfere
with the judgment of the High Court. The Selection was  done  in  accordance
with the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and the placement of  the
candidates was also done by the Committee in a  completely  fair  manner  on
assessment of individual  performance.   The  first  five  selectees  having
opted to join their posts, those who were in the waiting list  can  have  no
claim for appointment in the said posts.  Since the time limit  for  joining
was extended by the State Government on account of  the  facts  as  narrated
hereinabove, the joining of the respondent  Nos.  4  to  6  cannot  also  be
questioned.

10.   The Special Leave Petition, therefore, fails  and  is  dismissed,  but
without any order as to costs.

                                                         ……………………………………………J.
                                                             (ALTAMAS KABIR)


                                                         ……………………………………………J.
                                                            (J. CHELAMESWAR)
New Delhi
Dated: September 11, 2012