Appointment row: SC upholds HC decision

Tribune News Service

New Delhi, September 20

The Supreme Court has upheld a Himachal Pradesh High Court decision quashing the appointment of a member of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

A three-judge Bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, upheld the High Court’s decision setting aside the appointment of Meena Verma, noting that the state government had not framed any rules for the purpose of such selection.

The Bench, also comprising Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice DY Chandrachud, said the matter would have been different had there been rules to enable the state government to choose a person from a 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 performance, we are disposed to think that the High Court correctly expressed the opinion that the addition of public experience was uncalled for,” said the Bench, upholding the High Court verdict.

The verdict came on a petition filed by Sunita Sharma, who contended that Verma was appointed by ignoring the statutory provisions.

The top court had directed the commission to consider Sharma’s case, stating she was otherwise meritorious and more experienced as compared to Verma for appointment as a member.

The Principal Secretary (Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs) of the government of Himachal had advertised the vacancy for one post of part-time female member in April 2016.

In the list of selected candidates, Sharma was at serial no. 2 while Verma was at serial no. 3 and the committee had observed that it had prepared the list on the basis of “performance of candidates”.

It was in this background that Verma was appointed without specifying any reasons. Sharma challenged the decision before the High Court. The HC quashed the appointment terming it arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 of the Constitution.

Verma had challenged the HC’s decision and the state supported her saying the decision was based on her “public experience”.

The state government said the appointing authority was free to appoint any candidate recommended for appointment by the selection committee and named in the panel. Merely because Sharma was placed at serial no. 2 and was senior in age to the selected candidate, she could not claim to be appointed as a matter of right. But the top court rejected the state’s contention and upheld the HC’s decision.

Jolt for Meena

• A three-judge upheld the High Court’s decision setting aside the appointment of Meena Verma, noting that the state government had not framed any rules for the purpose of such selection. 
• The verdict came on a petition filed by Sunita Sharma, who contended that Verma was appointed by ignoring the statutory provisions