SUNANDA SHIVAPUTRAYYA KADROLIMATH Vs. THE UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this court calling in question the notification bearing No. ANS.57.SLR -2014 dated 27.06.2015 issued by Respondent No. 1 as per Annexure -A.

(2.) The notification at Annexure -A is issued by the 1st respondent notifying the names of the successful women candidates who have been selected and appointed for the post of the Member of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at different places. It is submitted by the petitioner that she was also one of the contestants. It is also submitted that the petitioner was enrolled as an Advocate in the year 1989 and she has been working as a Member of the Belagavi District Consumer Forum since from 01.09.2010. On 19.01.2015, the Respondent No. 2 by his letter bearing No. KSC/ADM/02/2015 recommended the name of the petitioner for the post of a Member (Non -Judicial) in the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, New Delhi, considering her efficiency.

(3.) The respondent has issued a notification dated 12.03.2015 calling applications for appointment to the vacant posts of Members in various District Consumer Forums. The petitioner had also applied for the said post and she appeared for the interview on 28.05.2015 before the Selection Committee at Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Basava Bhavan, High Grounds, Bengaluru. However, she was not successful and the notification was issued vide Annexure -A notifying names of the selected candidates. It is the contention of the petitioner that, she has been working as a Member in the Belagavi District Consumer Forum since from 01.09.2010 and the tenure of the petitioner ends on 01.09.2015. It is her contention that she has got very rich experience in the said field as she has been working as a Member in the District Consumer Forum and it is one of the additional qualification for her to be selected and appointed once again for the said post. The learned Counsel also contended before this court that the petitioner is very meritorious and she answered all the questions in the interview and in spite of that, she was not selected and therefore, she challenges the said notification before this court.