Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amrit Anjana vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 14 January, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-8869-2022 (O&M)
Reserved on : 23.12.2025
Pronounced on : 14.01.2026
Uploaded on : 14.01.2026
Amrit Anjana .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Argued by : Mr. Lokesh Chander Aggarwal, Advocate and
Ms. Sunayana Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Charanpreet Singh, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Sukhandeep Singh, Advocate for respondent No.4.
****
NAMIT KUMAR, J.
1. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by filing the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 16.05.2022 (Annexure P-15), vide which respondent No.4 has been appointed as President, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, 'District Commission'), Sangrur. Further, a writ of mandamus has been sought for directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner as President of the District Commission, Sangrur, being at Sr. No.2 in the merit list, which has fallen vacant due to the resignation tendered by Sh. Sant Parkash Sood within a period of six months. Further, a prayer has been made to appoint the petitioner or respondent No.4 to the post of President, District Commission, Patiala.
2. The brief facts, as have been pleaded in the petition, are that the State Government vide public notice dated 09.01.2021 1 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 15-01-2026 09:08:43 ::: CWP-8869-2022 (O&M) -2- (Annexure P-1) invited applications for filling up 09 posts of President, District Commissions at Barnala, Bathinda, Fatehgarh Sahib, Sangrur, Ropar, Kapurthala, Muktsar Sahib, Jalandhar and Faridkot, on whole time basis. The petitioner applied on 05.02.2021 for the post of President, District Commission, Sangrur and vide application dated 09.02.2021, she applied for the post of President, for District Fatehgarh Sahib. The Selection Committee, after assessing the suitability of the candidates, submitted district wise list of eligible candidates for recommendation in order of merit and forwarded the same to the State Government for appointment, vide communication dated 06.04.2021. The name of the petitioner was at Sr.No.2 for District Sangrur and one Sh. Sant Parkash Sood was at Sr. No.1, who was given appointment on 23.06.2021 and he joined as such on 23.06.2021 itself and thereafter, he submitted his resignation, which was accepted by the State Government on 31.01.2022 and he relinquished the charge of the said post on 02.02.2022. The petitioner submitted representation(s) dated 19.07.2021 and 20.07.2021 (Annexure P-4), claiming appointment as President, District Commission, Malerkotla. Thereafter, she submitted representations dated 22.03.2022 and 25.03.2022 (Annexure P-3) to respondents for appointment against the post which got vacant due to resignation of Sh.Sant Parkash Sood and when no action on the said representations was taken by the State Government, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition before this Court seeking directions to the respondents to consider the representations submitted by the petitioner and to appoint her against the post of President, District Commission, Sangrur or Malerkotla. The writ petition was dismissed by this Court 2 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 15-01-2026 09:08:43 ::: CWP-8869-2022 (O&M) -3- vide judgment dated 15.09.2022 (Annexure P-6) on the ground that vacancy stood consumed at the relevant point of time as Sh. Sant Parkash Sood was appointed on 23.06.2021 and his resignation was accepted on 31.01.2022 and that he was not impleaded as party respondent to the petition. The said judgment dated 15.09.2022 was challenged by the petitioner in LPA No.802 of 2023 titled as 'Amrit Anjana v. State of Punjab and others. In the said appeal, Sant Parkash Sood was impleaded as respondent No.4 and another person, namely Jot Naranjan Singh Gill was impleaded as respondent No.5, as in the interregnum Jot Naranjan Singh Gill was appointed as President, District Commission, Sangrur on 13/16.05.2022 and he joined on 17.05.2022. The said appeal was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 15.02.2024 (Annexure P-7). Thereafter, the petitioner filed a review application in the said LPA, which was also dismissed by the Division Bench on 16.04.2024 and the said orders were assailed by the present petitioner by filing SLP(Civil) No.13684- 13685 of 2024 (Amrit Anjana v. State of Punjab and others) which was converted into Civil Appeal No.12420-12421 of 2024. The said appeal was accepted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 14.11.2024 (Annexure P-12) and the judgment dated 15.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition as well as judgment and order dated 15.02.2024 and 16.04.2024 passed by the Division Bench in LPA and review application respectively, were set aside and the present petition i.e. CWP No.8869 of 2022 was restored and the appellant (present petitioner) was permitted to amend the writ petition by incorporating a challenge to the appointment of the fifth respondent 3 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 15-01-2026 09:08:43 ::: CWP-8869-2022 (O&M) -4- (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill). Consequently, the petitioner has sought amendment of the writ petition by impleading Jot Naranjan Singh Gill as party respondent. The said amendment has been allowed by this Court, vide order dated 06.02.2025.
3. Separate written statements have been filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 and 4, wherein the above said facts have not been disputed. In the written statement filed by way of an affidavit of respondent No.4-Sh. Jot Naranjan Singh Gill, it has been stated that respondent No.4 had earlier participated in the selection process for the post of President, District Commissions in the State of Punjab against vacant posts and his name was recommended by the prevalent Selection Committee against the vacant post of President, District Commission, Mansa, vide recommendation letter dated 22.12.2016 (Annexure R- 4/1), however, the said recommendations were not accepted by the State Government and vide letter dated 11.09.2017, it was directed that the selection process be carried out afresh (Annexure R-4/2). Aggrieved against the said action, respondent No.4 filed CWP No.30239 of 2018 titled as 'Jot Naranjan Singh Gill v. State of Punjab and others', before this Court, seeking quashing of order dated 11.09.2017 passed by respondent No.1, whereby the recommendations of the Selection Committee for appointment of the petitioner to the post of President, District Commission, Mansa was rejected, and for seeking appointment. In the said writ petition, on 13.09.2019, the following order was passed:
"Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequent to passing of the above order, three appointments to the post of Presidents have been made and the petitioner, herein, is also an aspirant to the post of President and as per the merit list, he is at serial No.8. He further submits that as per his information, after
4 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 15-01-2026 09:08:43 ::: CWP-8869-2022 (O&M) -5- appointment on the said three posts, one post, out of four posts, reserved vide order dated 13.11.2018 is still lying vacant. Counsel further submits that from the merit list, candidates at serial No.4, 5 and 7 have opted to be appointed while others do not seem to be interested as they have not approached this Court and, therefore, only petitioner is left in the foray qua one vacant post.
Adjourned to 18.09.2019.
In the meanwhile, one post of the President out of four posts, which were directed to be kept reserved vide abovesaid order, shall be kept reserved till the next date of hearing."
4. It has further been submitted that in the year 2021, the respondent-department issued one advertisement/notice for the post of President, District Commissions in the State of Punjab against nine vacant posts and in the advertisement/public notice dated 09.01.2021 (Annexure P-1), it was categorically mentioned that the aforesaid appointments shall be made subject to the final decision in CWP No.30239 of 2018 and various other Court cases which are pending in this Court. It was further mentioned in the advertisement/public notice that the number of vacancies may increase or decrease for any reason whatsoever or as ordered by this Court in various pending Court cases. Even in the appointment letter issued to Sh. Sant Parkash Sood, it was mentioned that the said appointment will be subject to the outcome of CWP No.30239 of 2018. It has further been stated that since the petitioner had submitted representation dated 20.07.2021 (Annexure P-
4) to the respondent-department, requesting therein that she should be considered for appointment to the post of President, District Commission, Malerkotla, thereby relinquishing her claim towards the post of President, District Commission, Sangrur. The petition filed by respondent No.4, came up for hearing before this Court on 24.02.2022, and the learned State counsel sought time to have instructions as to 5 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 15-01-2026 09:08:43 ::: CWP-8869-2022 (O&M) -6- whether the respondents are inclined to reconsider the impugned order dated 11.09.2017 (Annexure R-4/2). The said order reads as under:-
"Learned State counsel seeks time to have instructions as to whether respondents are inclined to reconsider the impugned order dated 11.09.2017 (P-7)?
Posted on 28.02.2022."
5. Thereafter, on 07.04.2022, the learned State counsel, on instructions from the concerned quarter, apprised the Court that after consideration of the matter, necessary approval in favour of the petitioner (respondent No.4 herein) has already been accorded by the competent authority and the matter is pending with the concerned quarter for remaining formalities. The order dated 07.04.2022 reads thus:-
"Prayer in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, is for quashing the impugned order dated 11.09.2017 (P-7), passed by respondent No.1, vide which recommendations made by the Selection Committee for appointment of the petitioner to the post of President, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has been rejected.
Learned State counsel, on instructions from the concerned quarter, has apprised the Court that after consideration of the matter, necessary approval in favour of the petitioner has already been accorded by the competent authority and matter is pending with the concerned quarter for remaining formalities.
In view of the above development, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that since his grievance is redressed by the respondents at their own level, therefore, he does not wish to press the petition any further.
As a result thereof, the writ petition is disposed off accordingly.
Needless to say that in case, the issue is not materialized, the petitioner would be at liberty to move an appropriate application for revival of the writ petition and the same shall be considered in accordance with law."
6. Consequently, respondent No.4 was appointed, vide order 6 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 15-01-2026 09:08:43 ::: CWP-8869-2022 (O&M) -7- dated 13/16.05.2022 as President, District Commission, Sangrur, and joined as such on 17.05.2022.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was at Sr.No.2 in the order of merit and the candidate at Sr.No.1, though appointed on 23.06.2021, had resigned on 31.01.2022, therefore, the petitioner, who is next in order of merit, is entitled to be appointed against the said vacant post and the action of the respondent- State in appointing respondent No.4 against the said post, is totally illegal and arbitrary and is liable to be set aside. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance upon office memorandum issued on 13.06.2000 by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, New Delhi, relating to the operation of reserved panels prepared on the basis of selections made by UPSC, Staff Selection Commission, and other recruiting agencies and where selections are made by ministries/departments etc.--acceptance of recommendations of Fifth Central Pay Commission-regarding.
8. Per contra, learned State counsel submitted that Section 29 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short, 'the Act'), provides that the Central Government may make rules to provide for qualifications, method of recruitment, procedure for appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of the President and Members of the District Commission. Under the said provision, rules known as 'The Consumer Protection (Qualification for Appointment, Method of Recruitment, Procedure of Appointment, Term of Office, Resignation and Removal of the President and Members of the State Commissioner 7 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 15-01-2026 09:08:43 ::: CWP-8869-2022 (O&M) -8- and District Commission) Rules, 2020' have been framed and the appointments have been made under the said rules. He has further referred to the letter dated 22.09.2020 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Department of Consumer Affairs, clarifying that appointment of President and Member, where the selection process had commenced under the old provisions, but was not yet completed, shall also be made under the provisions of the new rules.
9. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 submitted that respondent No.4 had earlier participated in the selection process and his name was recommended by the prevalent Selection Committee against the vacant post of President, District Commission, Mansa, vide recommendation letter dated 22.12.2016, however, the respondent- department, vide letter dated 11.09.2017, directed that the selection process be carried out afresh and the said action was challenged by him in CWP No.30239 of 2018 and during pendency of the said petition, various other similarly situated candidates were offered appointment to the posts of President in different districts and respondent No.4 was also offered appointment, vide appointment letter dated 13/16.05.2022, which was accepted by him and he joined as such on 17.05.2022 and, therefore, his appointment is legal and valid.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the on record with their able assistance.
11. Before proceeding further, it would be apt to make reference of the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules. Section 29 of the Act provides that the Central Government may, by 8 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 15-01-2026 09:08:43 ::: CWP-8869-2022 (O&M) -9- notification, make rules to provide for qualifications, method of recruitment, procedure for appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of the President and Members of the District Commission. Section 30 of the Act deals with terms and conditions of the service of the President and Members of the District Commission and provides that the State Government may, by notification, make rules to provide for salaries and allowances and other terms and conditions of service of the President and Members of the District Commission. Sections 29 and 30 of the said Act read thus:-
"29. Qualifications, etc., of President and members of District Commission.-The Central Government may, by notification, make rules to provide for the qualifications, method of recruitment, procedure for appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of the President and members of the District Commission.
30. Salaries, allowances and other terms and conditions of service of President and members of District Commission.- The State Government may, by notification, make rules to provide for salaries and allowances and other terms and conditions of service of the President, and members of the District Commission."
12. On the strength of provisions of Section 29, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the office memorandum dated 13.06.2000, issued by the Government of India, is applicable in the present case and since vacancy has arisen on account of resignation of Sh. Sant Parkash Sood, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be appointed, being at Sr.No.2 in order of merit. The said office memorandum reads as under:-
"No 41019/18/97-Estt(B) Government of India.
Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances & Pensions Department of Personnel & Training New Delhi, dated 13th June, 2000 OFFICE MEMORANDUM 9 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 15-01-2026 09:08:43 ::: CWP-8869-2022 (O&M) -10- Sub. Operation of reserve panels prepared on the basis of selections made by UPSC, Staff Selection Commission, other recruiting agencies and where selections are made by Ministries /Department etc- acceptance of recommendations of Fifth Central Pay Commission--regarding.
The undersigned is directed to invite attention to this Department's Office Memorandum quoted in the margin and to say that in terms of these Office Memorandum, it was informed that the Union Public Service Commission, wherever possible, maintains a reserve panel of candidates found suitable on the basis of selections made by them for appointment on direct recruitment, transfer on deputation, transfer basis and the reserve panel is operated by the UPSC on a request received from the Ministry/Department concerned when the candidate recommended by the UPSC either does not join, thereby causing a replacement vacancy or he joins but resigns or dies within sıx months of his joining Ministries/Departments were advised that whenever such a contingency arises, they should first approach the UPSC for consideration of a candidate from the reserve panel, if any. The recruitment process be treated as completed only after hearing from the UPSC and the Ministry/Department concerned may resort to any alternative method of recruitment to fill up the vacancy thereafter.
2. The Fifth Central Pay Commission, in para 17.11 of its Report, has recommended that with a view to reduce delay in filling up of the posts, vacancies resulting from resignation or death of an incumbent within one year of his appointment should be filled immediately by the candidate from the reserve panel, if a fresh panel is not available by then Such a vacancy should not be treated as a fresh vacancy. This recommendation has been examined in consultation with the UPSC and it has been decided that in future, where a selection has been made through UPSC, a request for nomination from the reserve list, if any may be made to the UPSC in the event of occurrence of a vacancy caused by non-joining of the candidate within the stipulated time allowed for joining the post or where a candidate joins but he resigns or dies within a period of one year Ifrom the date of his joining if a fresh panel is not available by then. Such a vacancy should not be treated as fresh vacancy.
3. It has also been decided that where selections for posts under the Central Government are made through other recruiting agencies such as Staff Selection Commission or by the Ministries/Departments directly and the reserve panels are similarly prepared, the procedure for operation of reserve panels maintained by UPSC as described in 10 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 15-01-2026 09:08:43 ::: CWP-8869-2022 (O&M) -11- para 2 above will also be applicable for the reserve panels maintained by the other recruiting agencies/authorities.
Sd/-
(Harinder Singh) Joint Secretary to the Government of India"
13. From the above pleadings, the following two questions arise for the consideration of this Court in the present case:-
(i) whether the petitioner, who was at Sr. No.2 in order of merit, is entitled for appointment against the post which became vacant on account of resignation of Sh. Sant Parkash Sood, who was at Sr. No.1 in order of merit?
(ii) whether the appointment of respondent No.4 is legal and valid or not?
14. The facts are not in dispute that the petitioner was at Sr.No.2 in the merit list, whereas Sh. Sant Parkash Sood was at Sr.No.1, which was prepared by the Selection Committee in the selection process which was initiated in pursuance to the public notice dated 09.01.2021. Sh. Sant Parkash Sood was offered appointment on 23.06.2021 and he joined on the same day and thereafter submitted his resignation which was accepted by the State on 31.01.2022 and he relinquished the charge of said post on 02.02.2022. Once the vacancy has been consumed by Sh. Sant Parkash Sood, the petitioner, who was at Sr.No.2 in the the merit list, has no right to seek appointment. The right of appointment would have been created in favour of the petitioner had Sh. Sant Parkash Sood not joined against the said post. The said view is supported by a Division Bench of this Court in 11 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 15-01-2026 09:08:43 ::: CWP-8869-2022 (O&M) -12- Dhirinder Chopra v. State of Haryana and others : 2014(2) SCT 725, wherein it has been held that the candidates in the waiting list have no vested right to be appointed except to the limited extent that when a candidate selected against the existing vacancy does not join for some reason and the waiting list is still operative. To the similar effect is the judgment in the case of Parminder Singh Vs. The State of Punjab and others : 2009(3) SCT 663, wherein it has been held as under:-
"3. The waiting list is to operate if any vacancy remains unfilled during the life of the waiting list. However, in the present case, all available vacancies were filled up and consumed. One vacancy became available on account of resignation of one of the appointee. Such vacancy cannot be allowed to be filled up and has to be re-advertised in accordance with the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and cannot be utilised for the waiting list candidates. The position in law is settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Madan Lal and others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others, 1995(2) SCT 880: AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1088, and in the case of Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers' Association v. The State of Gujarat and others, 1994(2) SLR 710, wherein it has been held as follows:
"A waiting list prepared in an examination conducted by the Commission does not furnish a source of recruitment. It is operative only for the contingency that if any of the selected candidates does not join then the person from the waiting list may be pushed up and be appointed in the vacancy so caused or if there is some extreme exigency the Government may as a matter of policy decision pick- up persons in order of merit from the waiting list. But the view taken by the High Court that since the vacancies have not been worked out properly, therefore, the candidates from the waiting list were liable to be appointed does not appear to be sound. This practice, may result in depriving those candidates who become eligible for competing for the vacancies available in future. If the waiting list in one examination was to operate as an infinite stock for appointment, there is a danger that the State Government may resort to the device of not holding an examination for years together and pick up candidates from the waiting list as and when required. The constitutional discipline requires that this Court should not permit such improper exercise
12 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 15-01-2026 09:08:43 ::: CWP-8869-2022 (O&M) -13- of power which may result in creating a vested interest and perpetrate waiting list for the candidates of one examination at the cost of entire set of fresh candidates either from the open or even from service."
4. In view of the aforesaid legal position, the vacancy having been consumed after selection, its availability on resignation of the candidate does not create any right in the petitioner to seek appointment from the waiting list."
15. In this view of the matter, the petitioner has no right to seek appointment against the post vacated by Sh. Sant Parkash Sood by submitting his resignation and the first question is answered against the petitioner accordingly.
16. With regard to second question, it may be noticed that respondent No.4 had participated in the earlier selection process for the post of President, District Commissions in the State of Punjab and his name was recommended by the prevalent Selection Committee against the vacant post of President, District Commission, Mansa, vide recommendation letter dated 22.12.2016, however, the said recommendations were not accepted by the Government and vide letter dated 11.09.2017, it was directed that the selection process be carried out afresh. The said action was challenged by respondent No.4 in CWP No.30239 of 2018 and during the pendency of the said petition, various other similarly placed persons, who were also part of the recommendations dated 22.12.2016, were offered appointment and he was also offered appointment as President, District Commission, Sangrur, vide order dated 13/16.05.2022 and he joined as such on 17.05.2022. The appointment of respondent No.4 is valid appointment and no fault can be said to have been committed by the respondents. Therefore, the said issue is answered in favour of respondent No.4.
13 of 14
::: Downloaded on - 15-01-2026 09:08:43 :::
CWP-8869-2022 (O&M) -14-
17. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the present petition, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
18. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
14.01.2026 (NAMIT KUMAR)
Vinay JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
14 of 14
::: Downloaded on - 15-01-2026 09:08:43 :::