JBVNL Ad set aside, Jharkhand HC orders performance check first
Ranchi, March 18: The Jharkhand High Court has set aside Advertisement No. 03/2025 issued by Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (JBVNL)…
Ranchi, March 18: The Jharkhand High Court has set aside Advertisement No. 03/2025 issued by Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (JBVNL) for appointing new Second Members in Consumer Grievance Redressal Forums (CGRFs), holding that existing members cannot be replaced without first evaluating their performance.
In a significant judgement delivered recently, Justice Ananda Sen clarified that while extension of tenure is not an automatic right, it becomes mandatory when the service of CGRF members is found satisfactory under the JSERC Regulations, 2020.
Dispute Over Extension vs Fresh Recruitment
The case was filed by three CGRF Second Members, Pramod Kumar, Saket Bihari Saran, and Virendra Pratap Dubey, who challenged JBVNL’s decision to issue a fresh recruitment advertisement without considering their extension.
The petitioners argued that under Regulation 4.2(2) of the Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission (JSERC) Regulations, 2020, their tenure of three years is extendable by up to two years based on satisfactory service. They claimed that issuing a fresh advertisement without evaluating their performance amounted to an indirect denial of extension.
JBVNL Defends Discretionary Power
JBVNL, however, maintained that extension is not a matter of right and depends entirely on the discretion of the distribution licensee. The utility argued that it had the authority to fill the posts through open recruitment and was not obligated to assess the petitioners’ performance before doing so.
Court Emphasises Independence of CGRF
The High Court rejected this argument, stressing that Consumer Grievance Redressal Forums must function as independent adjudicatory bodies. Since disputes before CGRFs often involve the distribution licensee itself, allowing unilateral removal or non-extension of members could compromise the forum’s neutrality.
The court observed that denying an extension without evaluation would create undue influence over members and weaken public confidence in the grievance redressal mechanism.
Interpretation of ‘Extendable’ Clause
A key issue before the court was the interpretation of the word “extendable” in Regulation 4.2(2).
The court held that:
- Extension is not automatic, but
- Once performance is satisfactory, extension must follow
The judgment clarified that the provision cannot be used to arbitrarily deny continuation of members. Instead, a proper performance assessment is a mandatory step.
Advertisement Quashed, Fresh Process Conditional
Setting aside the recruitment advertisement, the court directed JBVNL to first evaluate the performance of existing CGRF Second Members.
Only if their performance is found unsatisfactory can the posts be declared vacant and filled through a fresh selection process.
Why This Judgment Matters
This ruling strengthens procedural fairness in public appointments and reinforces the independence of quasi-judicial bodies like CGRFs. It also limits arbitrary decision-making by distribution companies in matters affecting consumer grievance redressal.
