The Andhra Pradesh High Court has confirmed the appointment of Smt. T. Anitha as the President of the District Consumer Forum, Chittoor. A Division Bench comprising Justice B. Krishna Mohan and Justice Nyapathy Vijay set aside the earlier Single Judge order that had invalidated her appointment.
The issue came to court through a Writ Appeal filed by the appellant after the Single Judge set aside her appointment based on procedural and eligibility concerns.
The court clarified that according to Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India and Rule 5(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 2007, a person must have practiced as an advocate for at least 7 years to be eligible for the post of District Judge. The same standard applies to appointments of Presidents and Members of District Consumer Commissions.
Read Also:- Pending Investigation Without Chargesheet Cannot Stop Promotion: AP High Court
“The words ‘he is, or has been or is qualified’ occurring in Section 4(1)(a) of the Rules indicate that a person who was qualified for the post of District Judge would suffice the criteria for appointment as President/Member.”
The appellant, Smt. T. Anitha, had practiced law in Tirupathi Courts from 1999 to 2010, fulfilling the requirement of seven years of advocacy experience. She was also previously appointed as a Member in both Chittoor and Kadapa Consumer Commissions, which gave her adjudicatory experience.
Background of the Case
The government of Andhra Pradesh had invited applications to fill 13 vacant President positions across various district consumer forums. The eligibility included an age limit (35 to 65 years) and the qualifications required for a District Judge as per the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (Sections 28 to 30).
Read Also:- Caste System Not Part of Christianity, SC/ST Act Cannot Be Invoked by Converts: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Smt. T. Anitha, along with two others, was shortlisted for the post in Chittoor. She ranked first and was selected based on merit. However, a writ petition challenged her appointment, questioning her qualification and the absence of reservation in the selection process.
The Single Judge had earlier nullified the appointment due to procedural concerns, specifically citing an antecedent report that was allegedly not verified properly. The Division Bench found this reasoning insufficient.
“The contention that the antecedent report was defective cannot outweigh the fact that the appellant met all eligibility conditions and was ranked highest on merit.”
The writ petitioner also claimed that reservation should have been applied to the post. The High Court responded that the petitioner should have challenged the rules themselves, which do not mandate reservation, rather than the appointment made under them.
“As regards the plea of reservation, the writ petitioner primarily should have questioned the rules rather than the appointment.”
The Court concluded that the appellant was indeed qualified and had no negative remarks in her previous service. The High Court emphasized that reservation in such appointments is a policy decision, and without any challenge to the existing rules, the appointment could not be faulted.
Quoting a previous ruling, the Bench cited the S. Nagender vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh [2006 (4) ALD 210] case, stating that such matters are the State's prerogative.
“In the absence of any challenge to the Rule, which do not provide for any reservation, the challenge to the appointment of the Appellant...cannot be sustained.”
The Division Bench, therefore, allowed the appeal and reinstated Smt. T. Anitha’s appointment.
Case Number: WRIT APPEAL No.978 of 2024
Case Title: Smt. T. Anitha v. Kummara Mohan
