Jharkhand High Court Quashes Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Recruitment Notice, Mandates Performance Review Before CGRF Tenure Curtailment
(W.P.(S) No. 4891 of 2025.
By Rishika Sinha
The Jharkhand High Court has set aside a recruitment advertisement issued by Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (JBVNL), holding that the tenure of members of Consumer Grievance Redressal Forums (CGRFs) cannot be curtailed without first evaluating their performance for extension. The case arose from a writ petition filed by three Technical (Second) Members of CGRFs, who challenged Advertisement No. 03/2025 dated August 7, 2025, through which JBVNL sought to fill the very posts held by them. The petitioners contended that their tenure, though initially for three years, was extendable by two years under the JSERC Regulations, 2020, subject to satisfactory service, and that issuing a fresh advertisement without considering their extension amounted to an indirect and unlawful denial of continuation.
JBVNL opposed the plea, arguing that extension of tenure is not a matter of right. It is submitted that the word “extendable” under the Regulations indicates discretion, and the distribution licensee is not bound to extend the tenure of members. According to the respondents, once the initial tenure ended, they were within their authority to initiate fresh recruitment without evaluating the petitioners’ performance.
Justice Ananda Sen, however, rejected this stand and allowed the writ petition, highlighting several key legal points. First is Extension Linked to Performance: The Court held that while extension is not an automatic right, it is conditional upon “satisfactory service.” Therefore, an evaluation exercise is mandatory before deciding whether to extend tenure. Second is ‘Extendable’ Interpreted as Mandatory in Context Interpreting Clause 4.2(2) of the JSERC Regulations, 2020 purposively. The Court ruled that the term “extendable” must be read as mandatory where performance is satisfactory. Once service is found satisfactory, extension should ordinarily follow. Third is the independence of adjudicatory forums. The Court emphasised that CGRFs adjudicate disputes between consumers and distribution licensees. Allowing the licensee to deny extension arbitrarily would undermine the independence and impartiality of the forum, as members may feel pressured by the appointing authority. Fourth is the Limited Discretion of Distribution Licensee. The Court noted that even the appointment and removal of members are regulated by the State Commission, and the distribution licensee does not have unfettered control. Any interpretation granting unbridled discretion would defeat the purpose of the regulatory framework.
The High Court, on the above-discussed points, concluded that since no evaluation of the petitioners’ performance was undertaken, issuing the advertisement to fill their posts was held to be arbitrary and contrary to the Regulations. Accordingly, Advertisement No. 03/2025 was set aside, and it was directed to JBVNL to first assess the performance of the existing members. Only if their performance is found unsatisfactory can steps be taken to appoint new members. The ruling reinforces the principle that regulatory frameworks governing quasi-judicial bodies must be interpreted to preserve their independence, and administrative authorities cannot bypass procedural safeguards to prematurely replace incumbents.
