Denied appointment as President of Telangana State Consumer Commission, a former High Court judge has approached the Supreme Court questioning whether the State Government can deny him the post after it was forwarded not once, but twice by the Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana High Court.
As the question relates to judicial primacy in matters of selecting heads of quasi-judicial forums, the apex bench of Justices TS Thakur and V Gopala Gowda last week issued notice on the petition filed by Justice (Retd) B Chandra Kumar. It sought response from the Telangana government and Registrar General of Andhra and Telangana High Court to ascertain whether the recommendation of HC Chief Justice is binding on the State Government.
The petition is unprecedented as it is perhaps the first time when a judge who is denied appointment to a post-retirement job has dragged the State Government to Court on its decision declining to choose him. At the same time, a legal question lies in the heart of the dispute. Under Section 16 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, a former High Court judge is to be appointed as President of State Consumer Commission by the State Government but not without consultation with Chief Justice of the respective High Court. The petition argued that “consultation” here would mean “concurrence”.
The retired judge represented by senior advocate B Adinarayana Rao told the bench, “When the HC Chief Justice forwards a name there is no law whether the state government has to accept it. But even if so, can the state say they do not want to appoint a particular judge recommended by the Chief Justice as his face is not acceptable to them. It concerns primacy of judiciary.”
The facts of the case suggest that Justice Kumar’s name was forwarded by HC Chief Justice sometime in January this year to fill the post of President of Telangana Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The Commission was constituted on October 15, 2014 and has since been headless and hence inoperative. In this regard, a PIl was heard and disposed by the Andhra and Telangana High Court in February 2015 on an assurance received from state to follow up on the recommendation of the Chief Justice.
The failure of the state to act prompted a contempt case to be filed and even as it bought time from the Court, it opened fresh lines of communication with the Chief Justice of High Court requesting for a panel of names. Instead of a panel, the High Court Chief Justice reiterated the name of Justice Kumar. In June 2015, the state disclosed its intention by informing the HC in the contempt case that the recommended of Chief Justice was “not acceptable” to the Government. The matter will next be heard by apex court after six weeks.