Case Title: Kedar Lal Gupta versus State Rajasthan, through Chief Secretary, Government Secretariat, Jaipur & Anr.
Case No.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7767/2020S.B.
Decided on: 17/05/2023
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Facts of the case:
The petitioner is that in spite of recommendations made by the Selection Committee, the State Government has not appointed the petitioner as Judicial Member of Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short “the State Commission”).
The petitioner submits that the petitioner as well as one Mr. Atul Kumar Chatterjee were working on the post of President, District Consumer Disputes Forum at Jaipur and Jodhpur respectively and both participated in the process for selection on the post of Judicial Member of the State Commission along with other candidates and names of both these persons were recommended by the Selection Committee for their appointment but the State appointed Mr. Atul Kumar Chatterjee and no orders were passed for appointment of the petitioner without any justified reasons.
Such an act of the State amounts to discrimination between two equals. It is well settled proposition of law that two equals should be treated equally and unequals should be treated unequally. Treating the equals as unequals would offend the doctrine of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
There is no doubt that the State Government is the Appointing Authority and the discretion lies with it to accept the recommendations of the Selection Committee under Section 16(1A) of the Act of 1986 or not, but such discretionary powers exercised by the government must be exercised in a manner that is not arbitrary, unreasonable, or discriminatory.
Judgement:
Here in this case, both Mr. Atul Kumar Chatterjee and the petitioner were sailing in the same boat and both of them were posted as President in different District Consumer Disputes Forums and the Selection Committee recommended names of both persons for appointment to the post of Judicial Member in the State Commission, but the State accepted the recommendation of the Mr. Atul Kumar Chatterjee and rejected the recommendation of the petitioner in an arbitrary manner. The discretion has been used by the State in a vague and fanciful manner. The judgment cited and relied by the respondents are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Stay application and all application, pending if any, also stands disposed of and No order as to costs.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by: Mahima Saini
