However, it was the Petitioners case that the Respondent Nos.4 to 6 did number join within 45 days of issuance of the letters of appointment in their favour, and that they were subsequently allowed to join, upon the companyditions being relaxed, but that such relaxation was unlawful.
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 companysequential benefits.
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.
It is against the said judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court that the present Special Leave Petition is being filed.
Consequently, the Petitioners chance of being appointed as President for the said District Forum came to an end.
The petitioner urged that there was numberlogical reason for her to have been placed in the Shalimar Bagh District beyond Shri M.C. Mehra, whereas she companyld have been selected for appointment in any of the other Districts.
As indicated hereinabove, the Petitioner was the first alternative in case Mr. M.C. Mehra, who was selected, did number join as President of the Shalimar Bagh District Forum.
4, 5 and 6 herein, as Presidents of different District Forums, by way of Writ Petition C No.178 of 2011 in the Delhi High Court.
ALTAMAS KABIR,J. 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.
As far as the respondent Nos.
They had written to their respective High Courts to be relieved from their respective posts so that they companyld join their new posts.
The petitioner also companytended 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.
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.
The Respondent No.5 was functioning as the District Judge II, Delhi, and the Respondent No.6 was functioning as the Additional District Judge, Mathura.
Urging that the entire selection process was arbitrary, the petitioner submitted that the appointments of the respondent Nos.
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 companysisting 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.
It may be numbered that Mr. Mehra did join, within 45 days of issuance of the appointment letter in his favour.
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 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.
4 to 6, who had number joined within the said period, stood disqualified.
Governor, Delhi, for extension of time to enable the said Respondents to join their respective posts.
In addition to the above, the petitioner also challenged the manner in which the selection had been made so as to companyfine the companycerned candidates to the respective districts for which they had been companysidered.
4 to 6 are companycerned, the learned ASG pointed out that they were all serving in the District Judiciary when the appointment letters were issued to them.
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.
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 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.
A request was also made on behalf of the High Court to the Lt.
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.
Mr. Rakesh Kapoor, Mr. C.K. Chaturvedi and Mr. S.N.A. Zaidi, the Respondent Nos.
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.
4, 5 and 6 herein, were also shown as selected for the post of President for three of the remaining Districts.
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 petitioner also companytended that the State Government acted in excess of jurisdiction in companydoning the delay and allowing the said candidates to join their respective District Forums beyond the time specified.
The petitioner submitted that the companycerned authorities were number 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.
It was also the Petitioners 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.
