The Apex Court on 19.09.2018, in Meena Verma v State of Himachal Pradesh and another dismissed the appeal which was made the appointment of a female candidate for a job post in the Himachal Pradesh Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

The second respondent to the case, had been grieved as the appellant had been appointed as member in the Himach.al Pradesh Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on a part time basis .A writ petition was then filed before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, which the appointment of the appellant was quashed by an order and judgement of while directing the Commission for considering the case of the writ petitioner.

Facts: A job post concerning a part time basis for a female Member was put on advertisement along with the necessary qualifications by the Principal Secretary (Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs) of the Government of Himachal Pradesh. After an interview held by the Selection Committee , names were published as per the merit basis of the candidates as such that the names of the respondent no. 2 and appellant had appeared at serial nos. 2 and 3 respectively. The appellant was selected by the first respondent .As such that a representation by the second respondent was submitted upon which no action had been taken and, as a result she had no other options but to approach the High Court in order to redress the grievances.

The writ petitioner, raised contention before the High Court with regard to the recommendation made by the Selection Committee that clearly mentioned about preparing a panel upon the merit of the candidates and as such when the name was allotted at serial no. 2, as such the name could not have been ignored.While the respondent contended that solely based on seniority and the name being included in the serial No. 2 and also due to her seniority , there could not be any claim to appointment by the petitioner and hence the selected candidates appointment in no way could be a reason for annulment.

The High Court after considering the facts concluded that the action taken up by the State Government is arbitrary and discriminatory in nature which is in contravention Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It was further opined that a person would have a better experience in terms of every sphere based on his seniority. And held that seniority should always been given preference by stating that the petitioner was more meritorious than the chosen candidate in every way.

Held:The Hon’ble Supreme Court , dismissed the appeals by upholding that when there is an absence of any Rule /executive instruction, and the Selection Committee had chosen the candidates upon the merit basis , the decision rendered by the lower Court is highly was highly uncalled for.

[1] https://www.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2018/456/456_2018_Judgement_19-Sep-2018.pdf