The Andhra Pradesh High Court has emphasized that the State Government cannot override the Selection Committee’s recommendation while appointing members or presidents to Consumer Forums. If the top-ranked candidate is found unsuitable based on integrity or antecedent concerns, the government must first send the report to the Selection Committee for reconsideration. If the committee reaffirms its choice, the government is duty-bound to proceed with the appointment.
A division bench comprising Justice B. Krishna Mohan and Justice Nyapathy Vijay passed this ruling in a case concerning the appointment of Tappa Abdul Rasool as President of the District Consumer Forum in Kadapa.
Read Also:- Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules: Excavator Is a ‘Motor Vehicle’ Under the Motor Vehicles Act
“In cases where the Government feels that a candidate ranked first is not suitable due to antecedents or integrity, such concerns must be placed before the Selection Committee. If the Committee still recommends the candidate, the Government must appoint him,” the Court held.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from appointments to 13 vacant posts for District Commission Presidents. Among the candidates, Kalikiri Sireesha, V. Subba Reddy, and Tappa Abdul Rasool received 23, 18, and 16 marks respectively. Despite being third in merit, Rasool was appointed, leading Sireesha and Reddy to file petitions challenging this decision.
The Single Judge set aside Rasool’s appointment and directed the government to issue fresh appointment orders based on merit and antecedents. Rasool then appealed to the division bench.
Court’s Observation
The bench interpreted Rule 6 of the A.P. State Consumer Protection Rules, 2020. It highlighted that the Selection Committee has the authority to prescribe shortlisting criteria, assess performance records, and consider the integrity and experience of candidates.
“Suitability of candidates lies in a grey area. Allowing the government to unilaterally override the Committee’s recommendation opens the door to favoritism and executive overreach,” the Court remarked.
The bench further clarified that if the government believes a top-ranking candidate is unfit, it must provide the antecedent report and its opinion to the Selection Committee. Only in exceptional cases—such as ongoing trials for serious crimes—can the government independently withhold appointment.
Specific Petitions and Findings
- Kalikiri Sireesha's Petition (W.P. No. 18214/2022):
The Court found that the government should have submitted its concerns about Sireesha’s suitability to the Selection Committee. It could not bypass the committee and appoint another candidate without this process. - V. Subba Reddy's Petition (W.P. No. 7588/2022):
The Court noted that Reddy admitted to facing trial for serious offences including assault and criminal intimidation. In such a case, the State was justified in not appointing him, given the grave nature of the allegations.
Case Title: Tappa Abdul Rasool v. V. Subba Reddy
