LexN. KANNADASAN versus AJOY KHOSE AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2009] 7 S.C.R. 668 N. KANNADASAN v AJOY KHOSE AND OTHERS Civil Appeal No. 7360 of 2008 MAY 6, 2009 (S.B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.) Consumer Protection Act, 1986: Section 16 - Post of Chairman, State Consumer c Commission - Appointment of - Person who was earlier Additional Judge of High Court and had demitted office since he was not made Permanent Judge, was recommended and appointed - Challenged before High Court - Allowed by the High Court holding that the recommendation itself was vitiated 0 - On appeal, Held: If a person does not have qualification to hold the office of a Judge of High Court, it is difficult to conceive as to how despite such deficiency in qualification, he could be recommended for appointment to a statutory post, the eligibility criteria wherefor is inter alia a former Judge - Moreover, when for a Member of the Commission, ability, E integrity and standing are essential qualifications, such criteria should equally apply to the Chairman - Indisputably a person having doubtful integrity should neither be recommended by the High Court nor ~pointed by the State Government - Judicial Review - Constitution of India, Article 217 - F Consultation. G Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 32, 226 - Writs - Writ of Quo Warranto and Writ of certiorari - Scope and ambit of - Discussed. The appellant who was a practicing Advocate was appointed as an Additional Judge of the Madras High Court. During his tenure there were allegations of lack of probity against him and he was not appointed as a H 668 N. KANNADASAN V AJOY KHOSE AND OTHERS 669 -.:..;. -J Permanent Judge, and he demitted office. His name was A included in the list of retired Judges. . State Government requested the High Court to send a list of names for appointment as President of the State Consumer Disputes Reddressal CommissiOn. Names of 8 three persons including the appellant was sent to the State Government and the appellant was appointed as .... President of the Commission. -+ Writ Petitions filed in the High Court challenging the appellant's appointment were allowed. Hence the appeals. c Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. Suitability of a person to be considered for appointment as a Chairman of a State Commission having regard to the provisions contained in Article 217 of the D -<. Constitution of India_ has been assumed by this Court to be available for the eligible persons who are retired Judges ~which_would mean that those Judges who had retired from service without any blemish whatsoever and not merely a person who "has been a judge". [Para 16) [701-D] E Ashish Handa v. The Hon'ble the Chief Justice of High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others, (1996) 3 sec 145 ' - relied on. Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association. and F ..... others v. Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 441; 'Ashok Kumar "Yadav v. State of Haryana, (1985) 4 SCC 417 and T. Fenn Walter (2002) 6 SCC 184 - r.eferred to. 2. An Additional Judge holding a tenure post stricto ~ sensu does not retire. It is one thing to say_ that having G ,.-( regard to the constitutional embargo, he would not hold office after he attains the age of 62 years but it is another thing to say that for all other purposes, he can be equated with a sitting Judge. [Para 16] [701-E-F] 3. An Additional Judge who has not been confirmed, H 670 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 7 S.C.R. A may for the purpose of giving effect to the constitutional provisions be considered to be a former Judge but when it comes to the question of his appointment in the said capacity, it is possible to take somewhat different view having regard to his present status, viz., an advocate or a B district judge, as the case may be. He despite being a · former Judge is entitled to practice in the same High Court, which other Judges are not permitted to do so. He may appear before the Tribunal and subordinate courts. A person for the aforementioned purpose must answer the c test of his being qualified to be a Judge. For the purpose of Section 16 of the Act, he must be equated with a sitting Judge of a High Court. In other words, he could, but for the reasons like reaching the age of superannuation, continµe as a Judge. [Para 16) [702-D-F] D 4. If a person does not have qualification for continuing to hold the office of the Judge of a High Court, it is difficult to conceive as to how despite such deficiency in q
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.