A prior reconsideration order does not exempt candidates from a fresh selection process.

The appellant had applied under a 4 June 2019 notification for appointment as President of a District Consumer Forum.

In earlier proceedings, the High Court quashed a condition giving priority to District Judges and directed the respondents to reconsider his application dated 10 July 2019 in accordance with law

While those proceedings were pending, a fresh notification was issued on 29 March 2021 under the 2020 Rules. The appellant applied under that notification but did not appear for the written examination, which was part of the selection process

After the respondents declined to consider his candidature, he challenged that decision by writ petition. The Single Judge dismissed the petition, and the appellant appealed

Whether the earlier direction to reconsider the appellant’s application under the 2019 notification entitled him to consideration or appointment without participating in the selection process under the fresh 2021 notification

Whether the Single Judge’s dismissal of the writ petition warranted interference in appeal, given the appellant’s failure to sit the written examination

The Court considered the earlier order directing reconsideration of the appellant’s application under the 2019 notification, which did not confer an automatic right to appointment.

It also considered the fresh notification dated 29 March 2021 and the selection procedure under the Consumer Protection (Appointments and Others) Rules, 2020, including the written examination as a prerequisite to proceeding to viva voce.

The Court’s applied principle was that an applicant seeking consideration under a fresh selection process must comply with its prescribed requirements; an earlier direction concerning an application under a superseded notification does not exempt the applicant from those requirements.

The earlier order required reconsideration of the appellant’s 2019 application, but the fresh 2021 notification introduced a selection process under the 2020 Rules.

The appellant applied under that notification but chose not to take the written examination, which was required before he could be called for viva voce. The earlier order neither guaranteed his appointment nor dispensed with participation in the new process. The Court therefore held that he could not claim consideration for appointment based solely on the earlier order.

It found no ground to interfere with the Single Judge’s decision and dismissed the writ appeal.