State cannot withhold Consumer Commission appointments after selection panel, Rajasthan HC rules

The State Government issued an advertisement dated 09.11.2024 inviting applications for appointment as Members of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the 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 (“Rules of 2020”).

The respondents applied, appeared in the written examination and interview, and the duly constituted Selection Committee recommended a panel of 73 candidates in order of merit on 21.02.2025 under Rule 6(10).

The State Government appointed 42 candidates from the recommended panel but did not take a final decision regarding the remaining candidates.

The State challenged the orders directing consideration and appointment of the recommended candidates, contending that the Selection Committee’s recommendation was advisory and that the Government retained discretion not to appoint the remaining candidates.

Whether the State Government could withhold appointment of candidates recommended by the Selection Committee under Rule 6(10) of the Rules of 2020, in the absence of any adverse finding regarding their credentials or antecedents?

Whether the State Government possessed a general discretion to reject or disregard the Selection Committee’s recommendations after completion of the prescribed selection process?

Whether the State’s failure to decide the recommendations for the remaining candidates was contrary to the statutory scheme governing appointment to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission?

The Court applied Rule 6 of the Rules of 2020, which provides that the President and Members of the State and District Commissions are appointed by the State Government on the recommendation of the Selection Committee.

Under Rule 6(8)–(9), the Selection Committee is required to consider eligible applications and determine its procedure while assessing suitability, integrity, past performance and adjudicatory experience.

Rule 6(10) requires the Committee to recommend a panel of candidates in order of merit for the consideration of the State Government, while Rule 6(11) requires the State Government only to verify, or cause to be verified, the credentials and antecedents of the recommended candidates.

The Court held that, once a lawful selection process has been completed and recommendations made, the State’s statutory role is confined to the prescribed verification and it cannot withhold appointment without a valid reason or an impediment arising from such verification.

The Court found that the Selection Committee was lawfully constituted and had followed the procedure prescribed by Rule 6, including recommending 73 candidates in order of merit.

Although the State argued that the recommendations were merely advisory and that it retained discretion to appoint or not appoint particular candidates, the Court held that Rule 6(11) specifically defines the post-recommendation scrutiny available to the Government: verification of credentials and antecedents.

Since the State had already appointed 42 candidates from the same panel and had not identified any adverse material, verification-related impediment, or other legally valid reason for withholding appointment of the remaining recommended candidates, its inaction was inconsistent with the statutory scheme.

Such withholding would also undermine the legislative objective of ensuring the effective functioning of the Consumer Courts for public benefit.

It found no legal infirmity in the impugned orders and dismissed all three connected special appeals.

All pending applications were disposed of.