Page 1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL     LEAVE     PETITION     (C)     NO.29967     OF     2011   

DR. PREM LATA … PETITIONER  Vs.

GOVT. OF NCT DELHI AND ORS. … RESPONDENT

J     U     D     G     M     E     N     T   

ALTAMAS     KABIR,J.      

1. The Petitioner, Dr. Prem Lata, who appeared in-

person, challenged the appointment of Mr. Rakesh  

Kapoor, Mr. C.K. Chaturvedi and Mr. S.N.A. Zaidi,  

the Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 herein, as  

Presidents of different District Forums, by way of

Page 2

2

Writ Petition (C) No.178 of 2011 in the Delhi High  

Court.  In addition she prayed that while quashing  

the appointments of the said three Respondents, a  

Mandamus should issue to the State Government to  

appoint her as President of one of the District  

Fora in Delhi, with effect from 1st December, 2010,  

with all consequential benefits.

2. The Petitioner is a member of the District  

Forum and, pursuant to advertisements published on  

18th March, 2010, inviting applications for the post  

of President of five District Forums, had applied  

for appointment as President of one of the said  

five District Forums in Delhi.  After interviewing  

63 candidates, the Selection Committee prepared a  

panel in which the Petitioner was shown as the  

first candidate in the waiting list in respect of  

Shalimar Bagh District Forum with Mr. M.C. Mehra as  

the selected candidate.  Mr. Rakesh Kapoor, Mr.  

C.K. Chaturvedi and Mr. S.N.A. Zaidi, the

Page 3

3

Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 herein, were also shown  

as selected for the post of President for three of  

the remaining Districts.  The panel was to be valid  

for a period of one year and, in case the  

candidates selected failed to join within 45 days  

of the offer of appointment, such offer would lapse  

and the second and third person, as the case may  

be, in order of preference, would be offered the  

appointment.   

3. As indicated hereinabove, the Petitioner was  

the first alternative in case Mr. M.C. Mehra, who  

was selected, did not join as President of the  

Shalimar Bagh District Forum.  It may be noted that  

Mr. Mehra did join, within 45 days of issuance of  

the appointment letter in his favour.  

Consequently, the Petitioner’s chance of being  

appointed as President for the said District Forum  

came to an end.  

Page 4

4

4. However, it was the Petitioner’s case that the  

Respondent Nos.4 to 6 did not join within 45 days  

of issuance of the letters of appointment in their  

favour, and that they were subsequently allowed to  

join, upon the conditions being relaxed, but that  

such relaxation was unlawful.  It was also the  

Petitioner’s case that the joining of the said  

Respondents as Presidents of their respective  

District Forums was invalid and was liable to be  

set aside and the Petitioner was entitled to be  

appointed as President of one of the District  

Forums in the resultant vacancies.   

5. The writ petition was dismissed on the ground  

that at the relevant time when the appointment  

letters were issued, the Respondent No.4 was  

functioning as the Principal District & Sessions  

Judge, Delhi.  The Respondent No.5 was functioning  

as the District Judge-II, Delhi, and the Respondent  

No.6 was functioning as the Additional District

Page 5

5

Judge, Mathura.  They had written to their  

respective High Courts to be relieved from their  

respective posts so that they could join their new  

posts.  A request was also made on behalf of the  

High Court to the Lt. Governor, Delhi, for  

extension of time to enable the said Respondents to  

join their respective posts.  In the circumstances  

indicated, the Government of NCT of Delhi extended  

the time and, thereafter, the said Respondents  

joined as Presidents of the respective Forums on  

25th February, 2011 and 28th February, 2011.  The  

learned Single Judge held that the power to extend  

the time was within the domain of the Respondent  

authorities and they had every right to extend the  

time to meet the exigencies which had cropped up in  

this case.  The Petitioner, thereupon, preferred  

Letters Patent Appeal No.518 of 2011, which was  

dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court  

on 16th August, 2011, upon reiteration of the  

decision of the learned Single Judge.  It is

Page 6

6

against the said judgment of the Division Bench of  

the High Court that the present Special Leave  

Petition is being filed.    

6. The petitioner submitted that the appointment  

for the posts in question is governed under Section  

10(1A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986,  

whereunder a Selection Committee consisting of the  

President of the State Commission, Secretary of the  

Law Department of the State and the Secretary In-

charge of the Department dealing with the Consumer  

Affairs in the State makes recommendations for  

selection to such posts.  The petitioner submitted  

that the concerned  authorities were not entitled  

to go beyond the recommendations made by the  

Committee within the time prescribed and since the  

candidates selected had to join within 45 days from  

the date of the receipt of the appointment letter,  

the respondent Nos. 4 to 6, who had not joined  

within the said period, stood disqualified.  The

Page 7

7

petitioner also contended that the State Government  

acted in excess of jurisdiction in condoning the  

delay and allowing the said candidates to join  

their respective District Forums beyond the time  

specified.  The petitioner also contended that upon  

disqualification of the said respondents 4 to 6,  

she was entitled to be appointed as the President  

of the one of the said three District Forums.  

 7. In addition to the above, the petitioner also  

challenged the manner in which the selection had  

been made so as to confine the concerned candidates  

to the respective districts for which they had been  

considered.  The petitioner urged that there was no  

logical reason for her to have been placed in the  

Shalimar Bagh District beyond Shri M.C. Mehra,  

whereas she could have been selected for  

appointment in any of the other Districts. Urging  

that the entire selection process was arbitrary,  

the petitioner submitted that the appointments of

Page 8

8

the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 after they had failed to  

join within the specified period of 45 days, were  

liable to be cancelled and a direction should be  

given to the State to appoint her as the President  

of one of the three Districts for which the  

respondent Nos.4 to 6 had been selected.

8. On the other hand, it was urged by the learned  

Additional Solicitor General, Mr. A.S. Chandhiok,  

that the first five candidates, who had been  

selected for the post of the President for five  

District Forums, had been selected on the basis of  

merit, as was also the case in respect of the other  

candidates kept in the waiting list.  The learned  

Additional Solicitor General contended that, in any  

event, the petitioner has no cause for grievance  

since Shri M.C. Mehra, who had been selected to be  

the President of the Shalimar Bagh District  

Consumer Forum, joined his post within the time  

specified and hence the petitioner could not claim

Page 9

9

the post of President for the said District Forum.  

As far as the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 are concerned,  

the learned ASG pointed out that they were all  

serving in the District Judiciary when the  

appointment letters were issued to them.  As  

indicated hereinbefore, at the relevant point of  

time the respondent No.4 was functioning as the  

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Delhi, while  

the respondent Nos.5 and 6 were functioning as the  

District Judge-II Delhi, and as the Additional  

District Judge, Mathura.   The learned Additional  

Solicitor General submitted that on receipt of  

their appointment letters the Respondent Nos.4 to 6  

had written to their respective High Courts to be  

relieved so that they could join their new posts.  

A request was also made to the Lt. Governor of  

Delhi on behalf of the High Court to extend the  

time of joining to enable the said respondents to  

join their respective District Forums.  Mr.  

Chandhiok  submitted that the delay in joining

Page 10

10

their respective District Forums was not on account  

of any deliberate design on the part of the said  

respondents to delay such joining, but such delay  

resulted on account of the exigencies of the  

situation which had been considered by the High  

Court and had been decided in favour of the said  

respondents on the principle that the power to fix  

the time limit also includes the power to extend  

the said period, which power was inherent in the  

State Government.  The learned ASG submitted that  

the selection had been done by the Selection  

Committee constituted under Section 10(1A) of the  

Act and the petitioner could not, therefore, have  

any grievance in that regard.

9.  Having considered the submissions made by the  

petitioner appearing in person and the learned  

Additional Solicitor General and also counsel  

appearing for one of the private respondents, we  

see no reason to interfere with the judgment of the

Page 11

11

High Court. The Selection was done in accordance  

with the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act  

and the placement of the candidates was also done  

by the Committee in a completely fair manner on  

assessment of individual performance.  The first  

five selectees having opted to join their posts,  

those who were in the waiting list can have no  

claim for appointment in the said posts.  Since the  

time limit for joining was extended by the State  

Government on account of the facts as narrated  

hereinabove, the joining of the respondent Nos. 4  

to 6 cannot also be questioned.

10. The Special Leave Petition, therefore, fails  

and is dismissed, but without any order as to  

costs.

……………………………………………J. (ALTAMAS KABIR)

……………………………………………J. (J. CHELAMESWAR)

Page 12

12

New Delhi Dated: September 11, 2012