Meena Verma vs State of Himachal Pradesh and Another

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

19 September 2018

Case No.

Civil Appeal No. 5710 of 2018

Result

Dismissed

Bench

Dipak Misra, D.Y. Chandrachud, A.M. Khanwilkar

Citation

[2018] 11 S.C.R. 690 : 2018 INSC 834

Headnote

Service Law:

Selection – As part time female member of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – Respondent (Candidate) and the appellant (another candidate) obtained equal marks – In the Selection List respondent was placed higher than the appellant – List was drawn in accordance with performance – State Government selected the appellant on the basis of her better public experience – Writ petition challenging the selection – High Court set aside the selection – On appeal, held: As the respondent was higher in the Selection List by the Selection Committee on the basis of performance of the candidates, she was more suitable than the appellant – Addition of public experience, in absence of any Rule or any executive instruction was uncalled for – Selection was rightly set aside by High Court.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: The Selection Committee was presided by the President of the Commission and the other members were Principal Secretary (FCS&CA) to the Government of H.P. and Principal Secretary (Law) to the Government of H.P. The Committee had used the phraseology “On the basis of the performance of the candidates”. The panel was drawn for the female members. It had placed respondent No. 2 at serial No. 2 and the appellant at serial No. 3. The Committee had drawn the list in accordance with performance and, therefore, respondent No. 2 was more suitable than the appellant. The State Government, while issuing the notification, had not ascribed any reasons. However, the Principal Secretary had given a note that the “present appellant had public experience” and on that basis, the Chief Minister signed the file and the notification was issued. The matter would have been different had there been a Rule to enable the State Government to choose a person from the 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 said performance, the High Court correctly expressed the opinion that the addition of public experience was uncalled for. [Para 12] [698-C-F]

S. Chandramohan Nair v. George Joseph and others (2010) 12 SCC 687 – relied on.

State of Kerala and another v. K. Reghu Varma and others AIR 2010 Kerala 28 – referred to.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DIPAK MISRA, CJI 1. The second respondent, being grieved by the appointment of the appellant as a part time female member in the Himachal Pradesh Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, ‘the Commission’), had assailed the same by way of a Writ Petition being C.W.P. No. 1571 of 2017 preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla. The High Court, by the impugned judgment and order dated 12.12.2017, quashed the appointment of the appellant and directed the Commission to consider the case of

View Subscription Plans →