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
