Alok Sharma ORDER
Alok Sharma, J.
1. The petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 29.01.2015 whereby his representation against non-appointment to the post of the Member (Female) in District Consumer Redressal Forum, Sawaimadhopur despite recommendation of the select committee under Section 10(1A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter "the Act of 1986") has been rejected for the reason that it purportedly lay within the sole discretion of the State Government not to appoint a member despite the recommendations of the select committee.
2. The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the advertisement dated 08.07.2013 inter alia for the post of Member (Female) in District Disputes Redressal Forums Sawaimadhopur, she applied. Having been called for interview on 06.09.2013, the petitioner appeared, was found suitable by the select committee and recommended for appointment. Yet the appointment was not forthcoming despite several months lapsing. An application under the Right To Information Act, 2005 on the issue elicited a reply on 04.03.2014 from the State Government that albeit the statutory select committee had recommended the petitioner for appointment to the post of Member (Female) in District Disputes Redressal Forums Sawaimadhopur, yet she was not appointed as the State Government had not thought it fit to approve the recommendation. A demand of justice dated 25.03.2014 at the instance of the petitioner through her counsel, in the circumstances followed but remained unaddressed. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by SBCWP No. 5527/2014. Vide order dated 10.10.2014, this Court allowed the petitioner to represent to the respondents and disposed of the petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation within six weeks. A representation dated 04.12.2014 at the instance of the petitioner followed, was farcically considered, it is submitted, and has been dismissed vide order dated 29.01.2015. Hence this petition.
3. Mr. Indresh Sharma, appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in terms of Section 10(1A) of the Act of 1986 appointments of Member/President of District Disputes Redressal Forums are to be made by the State Government on the recommendation of a select committee constituted of the President of the State Commission as its Chairman and the Secretary, Law Department and the Secretary, incharge of the Department dealing with consumer affairs in the State as its other two member. The select committee under Section 10(1A) of the Act of 1986 is thus evidently high powered committee and albeit the State Government has indeed as the appointment authority, discretion in the matter, yet the recommendation of the select committee cannot be negated without any good and plausible reason. Were it to be held to the contrary, it would tantamount to conferment of arbitrary discretion in the State Government and reduce the recommendation of a statutory high powered three members committee to redundancy. This court ought not to countenance such a regime where rule of law falters before naked misuse of discretion. It has been submitted that consequently the impugned order dated 29.01.2015 rejecting the petitioner's representation and upholding the earlier refusal to appoint the petitioner as a Member (Female) in District Disputes Redressal Forums Sawaimadhopur despite the recommendation of the select committee be quashed and set aside and consequential directions be issued that the petitioner be appointed in the circumstances, on the post in issue.
4. Mr. S.K. Gupta, AAG appearing for the respondents has submitted that even though a recommendation can be made by the select committee under Section 10(1A) of the Act of 1986, yet the State Government is not bound to accept the recommendation and mechanically appoint those recommended as President/Member of the District Disputes Redressal Forums as the case ........