MEENA VERMA versus STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2018] 11 S.C.R. 690 · Decided: 19-09-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
690
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 11 S.C.R.
MEENA VERMA
v.
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ANOTHER
(Civil Appeal No. 5710 of 2018)
SEPTEMBER 19, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
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
[2018] 11  S.C.R. 690
                                                  690
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
691
“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.
Case law reference
AIR 2010 Kerala 28
referred to
Para 7
(2010) 12 SCC 687
relied on
Para 7
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5710
of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated  12.12.2017 of the High
Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in CWP No. 1571 of 2017
Ritesh Khatri, Adv. for the appellant.
Abhinav Mukerji, AAG, H.P., Bihu Sharma, Siddharth Garg, Amit
Singh Chandel, Abhijat P. Medh, Aman Parth, Advs. for the respondents.
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
MEENA VERMA v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND
ANOTHER
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
692
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 11 S.C.R.
to consider the case of the writ petitioner stating, inter alia, that she is
otherwise meritorious and more experienced as compared to the appellant
for appointment as a member in the Commission. Hence, the appeal by
special leave.
2. The facts which are necessary to be enumerated are that on
25.04.2016, one post of part time female Member along with other
vacancies meant for various District Fora was advertised by the Principal
Secretary (Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs) of the Government
of Himachal Pradesh. The advertisement stipulated the qualifications,
namely, that the candidate shall not be less than 35 years of age; that she
should possess a Bachelors degree from a recognized University; and
that she should be a person of 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.