Govt.Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr vs Prem Lata

Dr. Prem Lata .... Respondent

ORDER

1) Leave granted.

2) This is an appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge

of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. The respondent was a Member

(Female) of the District Consumer forum, Delhi. On 06.04.2006,

applications have been invited from suitable candidates for appointment

on whole time basis for the post of Member (Female) in the District

Consumer Forum, Delhi. The respondent herein had submitted her

application for consideration as a Member (Female) as she was entitled to

be considered for reappointment under proviso of sub-section 2 of

Section 10 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to

as the "Act"). The last date for submitting the application was

21.04.2006. It appears that the respondent herein got submitted her

application only on 1st May, 2006, as she was out of India for sometime.

The application of the respondent was recommended by the President

1 who is also the Chairman of the Selection Committee and, therefore, she

was called for interview. When the panel of the selected candidates was

sent to the Lt. Governor it was noticed that the application submitted by

the respondent was delayed as it was sent on 1st May, 2006 i.e. beyond

the stipulated date. The Lt. Governor rejected the candidature of the

respondent on the ground that the application was sent late. Challenging

that, the respondent has filed a Writ Petition (C) No. 61 of 2007 before

the High Court and the same was considered by the High Court. By the

impugned judgment, it was held that the case of the respondent was not

that of appointment as envisaged under sub-section 1-A of Section 10 of

the Act, but of a reappointment as contemplated under proviso of sub-

section 2 of Section 10 of the Act and as the Delhi Administration

nowhere denied or disputed the eligibility of the respondent for

reappointment on the said post. Regarding delay in submitting her

application, the High Court by pointing out the action of the President of

the State Commission who was also Chairman of the Selection Committee

recommended her case and she was called for interview and she being a

sitting Member eligible for consideration for reappointment, allowed her

writ petition and directed to declare result of the respondent. By saying

so, the High Court set aside the decision of the Administration rejecting

her claim on the ground of late submission of the application.

3) Heard Shri Gopal Subramanium, learned Additional Solicitor General

2 and also the respondent, who appeared in person.

4) Learned Additional Solicitor General by drawing our attention to

first proviso to Section 10(2) of the Act submitted that even though the

respondent is eligible for reappointment for another term, she has to

fulfill the qualifications and other conditions for appointment mentioned

in clause (b) of sub-section 1. He also pointed out that even for

reappointment the procedure as applicable to fresh appointment ought to

be followed. On going through the relevant provisions particularly, first

proviso to Section 10(2), we are of the view that the contention of the

learned Additional Solicitor General is well founded. The reasoning of the

High Court that the respondent being a sitting Member of the District

Consumer Forum and being considered and the selection is for

reappointment, there is no need to comply with qualification and all other

conditions for fresh appointment cannot be sustained. However, it is

pointed out that though there were series of vacancies which arose

during the pendency of the proceeding before this Court, it is stated by

the respondent that her application was not considered only on the

ground that the matter was pending before this Court. It is also

submitted by the learned Additional Solicitor General that in the select

panel, the respondent's name appeared on a fairly higher position and

she could have been appointed but for the defect/delay in submitting her

application. Having regard to the peculiar facts of this case and the

3 respondent being otherwise qualified and also of the fact that the said

post is vacant as on date, the Government of NCT, Delhi is directed to

consider the application of the respondent as within time and pass

appropriate orders appointing her afresh as a Member (Female) in the

District Consumer Forum, Delhi as early as possible.

5) The appeal is disposed of on the above terms. No costs.

............................CJI.

(K.G. BALAKRISHNAN)

..................................J. (P. SATHASIVAM)

NEW DELHI;

DECEMBER 1, 2008.

4