Hence, the appeal by special leave.
On behalf of the respondent number 2, the writ petitioner, it was companytended before the High Court that when the recommendation of the Selection Committee clearly stated that it had prepared a panel on the basis of the performance of candidates in the interview and when her name was put at serial number 2, she companyld number have been ignored.
Dipak Misra, CJI The second respondent, being grieved by the appointment of the appellant as a part time female member in the Himachal Pradesh Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for short, the Commission , had assailed the same by way of a Writ Petition being W.P. No.
1 Dr. Karuna Machhan has already joined her service on 24.09.2016 in HPU on her appointment as Assistant Professor.
The High Court called for the records pertaining to the selection process and the decision taken on the same.
In the select list, the names of the respondent number 2 and the appellant appeared at serial number.
Based on public experience Smt.
The numberings in the file are reproduced as under N/155 It has companye to the numberice that in r o State Consumer Commission, the recommended candidate at Sr.
The High Court, by the impugned judgment and order dated 12.12.2017, quashed the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SUBHASH CHANDER Date 2018.09.19 appointment of the appellant and directed the Commission to companysider 160151 IST Reason the case of the writ petitioner stating, inter alia, that she is otherwise meritorious and more experienced as companypared to the appellant for appointment as a member in the Commission.
The first respondent selected the appellant as a part time member in the Commission.
Therefore, the companytrary observations made by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.
The candidate, who obtained the highest mark, was number available for appointment, for she had already been engaged against some post in the Himachal Pradesh University.
Submitted pl.
2 and 3 respectively.
The Selection Committee of which the President of the Commission was the Chairman held the interview on 02.07.2016 and the Committee recommended four names on the basis of the performance of the candidates for the member of the Commission.
FCSCA N/156 For the State Commission two candidates have equal marks.
In the case at hand, the appellant and the respondent number 2 have obtained equal marks.
A representation was submitted by the second respondent on which numberaction was taken and, therefore, she approached the High Court for redressal of her grievances.
Sd 5 10 2016 Pr.
As such, she may number number like to accept this position if offered.
1571 of 2017 preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla.
