Govt.of Nct of Delhi
& ANR. Vs. Prem Lata [2008] INSC 2051 (1 December 2008)
Judgment
CIVIL APPELLATE
JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.6924 OF 2008 ( Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO. 21813
OF 2007 ) Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. .... Appellants Versus 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 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.
1.
2.
3.
Heard
Shri Gopal Subramanium, learned Additional Solicitor General 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 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.
Back
Pages: 1 2 3