IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6924 OF 2008 ( Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO. 21813 OF 2007 )

Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.  ....  Appellants  

Versus

Dr. Prem Lata        .... Respondent

O R D E R  

1) Leave granted.

2) This is an appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge

of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi.  The respondent was a Member

(Female)  of  the  District  Consumer  forum,  Delhi.   On  06.04.2006,

applications have been invited from suitable candidates for appointment

on  whole  time  basis  for  the  post  of  Member  (Female)  in  the  District

Consumer  Forum,  Delhi.   The  respondent  herein  had  submitted  her

application for consideration as a Member (Female) as she was entitled to

be  considered  for  reappointment  under  proviso  of  sub-section  2  of

Section 10 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to

as  the  “Act”).   The  last  date  for  submitting  the  application  was

21.04.2006.  It  appears that the respondent herein got submitted her

application only on 1st May, 2006, as she was out of India for sometime.

The application of the respondent was recommended by the President

1

who is also the Chairman of the Selection Committee and, therefore, she

was called for interview.  When the panel of the selected candidates was

sent to the Lt. Governor it was noticed that the application submitted by

the respondent was delayed as it was sent on 1st May, 2006 i.e. beyond

the stipulated date.   The Lt.  Governor rejected the candidature of the

respondent on the ground that the application was sent late.  Challenging

that, the respondent has filed a Writ Petition (C) No. 61 of 2007 before

the High Court and the same was considered by the High Court.  By the

impugned judgment, it was held that the case of the respondent was not

that of appointment as envisaged under sub-section 1-A of Section 10 of

the Act, but of a reappointment as contemplated under proviso of sub-

section  2  of  Section  10  of  the  Act  and  as  the  Delhi  Administration

nowhere  denied  or  disputed  the  eligibility  of  the  respondent  for

reappointment  on  the  said  post.   Regarding  delay  in  submitting  her

application, the High Court by pointing out the action of the President of

the State Commission who was also Chairman of the Selection Committee

recommended her case and she was called for interview and she being a

sitting Member eligible for consideration for reappointment, allowed her

writ petition and directed to declare result of the respondent.  By saying

so, the High Court set aside the decision of the Administration rejecting

her claim on the ground of late submission of the application.   

3) Heard Shri Gopal Subramanium, learned Additional Solicitor General

2

and also the respondent, who appeared in person.  

4) Learned Additional  Solicitor  General  by drawing our  attention to

first proviso to Section 10(2) of the Act submitted that even though the

respondent  is  eligible  for  reappointment for  another  term, she has to

fulfill the qualifications and other conditions for appointment mentioned

in  clause  (b)  of  sub-section  1.   He  also  pointed  out  that  even  for

reappointment the procedure as applicable to fresh appointment ought to

be followed.  On going through the relevant provisions particularly, first

proviso to Section 10(2), we are of the view that the contention of the

learned Additional Solicitor General is well founded.  The reasoning of the

High Court that the respondent being a sitting Member of the District

Consumer  Forum  and  being  considered  and  the  selection  is  for

reappointment, there is no need to comply with qualification and all other

conditions for  fresh appointment cannot be sustained.   However,  it  is

pointed  out  that  though  there  were  series  of  vacancies  which  arose

during the pendency of the proceeding before this Court, it is stated by

the  respondent  that  her  application  was  not  considered  only  on  the

ground  that  the  matter  was  pending  before  this  Court.   It  is  also

submitted by the learned Additional Solicitor General that in the select

panel, the respondent’s name appeared on a fairly higher position and

she could have been appointed but for the defect/delay in submitting her

application.   Having regard to the peculiar  facts  of  this  case and the

3

respondent being otherwise qualified and also of the fact that the said

post is vacant as on date, the Government of NCT, Delhi is directed to

consider  the  application  of  the  respondent  as  within  time  and  pass

appropriate orders appointing her afresh as a Member (Female)  in the

District Consumer Forum, Delhi as early as possible.  

5) The appeal is disposed of on the above terms.  No costs.  

    …….......……………CJI.

                                     (K.G. BALAKRISHNAN)

.…...………………………J.                                       (P. SATHASIVAM)                                  

NEW DELHI; DECEMBER 1, 2008.              

4