V.SUBBA REDDY Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

(2.) The precise case of the petitioner is that the 2nd Respondent issued notification, dtd. 17/3/2022 inviting the application for appointment to the post of President for various District Consumer Forums in the State of Andhra Pradesh including Y.S.R Kadapa District. The petitioner applied for the post of President. On 18/6/1998 the petitioner was selected as Assistant Public Prosecutor and got 9 years of service. Since he got qualifications for appointment to the post of President, he was called for interview by the Selection Committee on 5/8/2021 and attended interview before them including others and called for antecedents. The Superintendent of Police, while verifying the antecedents called the petitioner on 6/12/2021 and enquired about his antecedents. He informed to the Superintendent of Police that a case in C.C.No.253 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa charged for the offence under Sec. 448 and 354 of IPC is pending against the petitioner due to property disputes between the family members. As per Rule 6(9) and (10) of Consumer Protection (Qualification for appointment, method of recruitment, procedure of appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of the President and members of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020 (in short the Rules") stated that pendency of the criminal case is not a ground for disqualification for appointment of President to the District Forum as he has not been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for an offence which involves Moral Turpitude. But the Superintendent of police opposed to recommend the name and made an endorsement while forwarding the same to the 1st respondent. Assailing the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.3 of 2022 and this Court vide its order dtd. 6/1/2022 in I.A.No.1 of 2022 directed the 1st respondent not to disqualify the petitioner to the post of President, District Commission on the ground of pendency of the criminal case. While the matter is being pending before this Court, the 1st respondent issued impugned G.O.Rt.No.8, dtd. 3/2/2022 appointing the 2 nd respondent as President of District Commission, YSR Kadapa District, which is contrary to Rule 6(10) of the Rules. Therefore, the present writ petition came to be filed.

(3.) Heard Mr. P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. E. Sambasiva Prathap, learned Additional Advocate General for the 1st respondent and Mr. M. Vijaya Kumar, learned Senior Counsel, representing Mr. K. Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.