Summary
The Supreme Court upheld the quashing of an appointment as part-time female member of the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Commission. Although the competing candidates had equal interview marks, the Selection Committee had arranged its panel by performance. Without a rule or executive instruction permitting a different choice from that panel, the State could not prefer the lower-placed candidate by introducing public experience as an additional basis.
Issues
- Whether the State could appoint the lower-placed of two equally marked candidates by relying on public experience when no selection rule or executive instruction authorised that departure.
Held
- The Selection Committee expressly prepared the panel on performance and placed the writ petitioner above the selected appellant, although both scored eleven out of twenty. In the absence of a rule or executive instruction enabling the State to choose otherwise, introducing public experience as an additional basis for preferring the appellant was uncalled for. (¶ 10–12)
- The earlier decision concerning Kerala did not justify the appointment: there, a rule empowered the Government to select from the panel with reasons. The present selection lacked such a rule. (¶ 9–12)
- The High Court’s interference with the appointment was upheld and the selected candidate’s appeal dismissed without costs. (¶ 12–13)
Result
Appeal dismissed without costs; High Court order quashing the appellant’s appointment and directing consideration of the writ petitioner’s case upheld.