D.B.BINU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Government had issued Ext.P1 notification dated 10/2/2020 inviting applications for selection and appointment to the post of President of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam. The last date fixed for receipt of application was on 12/3/2020. The petitioner submitted his application, as he is fully qualified in tune with the notification. The qualification fixed for the applicants as per Ext.P1 notification was: District Judge/Retired District Judge/those who are having the qualification for appointment as District Judge. The tenure of appointment was fixed as 5 years or till 65 years of age which ever is earlier. Those who have qualification for appointment as District Judge were directed to furnish their bio-data along with qualifying certificates to the Secretary, Department of Consumer Affairs, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram. The District Judges/Retired District Judges were to submit an application to the Registrar of the High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam. It was stated that the appointment would be made after conducting an interview by the selection committee to be appointed by the Government, from among the applicants who submitted applications from all sources. Even though the petitioner submitted his application on 04.03.2020, no action was taken thereafter. The petitioner points out that based on applications invited as per Ext.P6 and similar notifications, appointment of Presidents of CDRFs were made in Thiruvananthapuram, Idukki, Thrissur, Palakkad, Kozhikode and Kannur. At the same time appointments are not made in Ernakulam, Malappuram and Alapuzha.

(2.) The respondent has filed a statement stating that the Government had taken hasty steps for filling up the vacancies of Presidents in Thiruvananthapuram, Thrissur and Kannur Districts, conducting interview for selection. It is stated that the interview for selection to the post of President in the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kozhikode was fixed on 22.02.2020 but it could not be conducted because of COVID-19 pandemic. It is stated that pursuant to Ext.P1 notification for selection for appointment in Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam, the Government received 32 applications including that of the petitioner. But interview could not be conducted due to the out break of COVID-19 pandemic. It is further stated that the Consumer Protection Act , 1986 was replaced as per Section 107 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which came into force on 20.07.2020. Under Section 102 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the State Government may by notification frame rules for carrying out the provisions of the Act. It is stated that the State Government has not framed the Rules and only thereafter further steps can be taken in the matter of appointment. It is also stated that the qualification, method of recruitment, procedure of appointment etc., of the District Commission as well as State Commission are to be determined in accordance with Section 29 read with 101 of the Central Act . It is also stated that the respondent is not in a position to continue the selection process on account of the repealing of the 1986 Act.

(3.) Sri.P.Chandrasekhar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner points out that when the vacancy arose on 13.02.2020 and when the notification was issued at a time when the 1986 Act was in force appointments are liable to be made in accordance with the pre-amended rules. It is also pointed out that there is no change in respect of the qualification in the new Act or conditions of service of the President, though there is a change in the nomenclature of the District authority from Forum as Commission. It is also pointed out that so far no Commission is established in the State and no change is effected to the existing Forums.