(1.) This appeal is preferred by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 4723 of 2020 challenging the judgment dated 04.02.2021, whereby the following reliefs sought for by the writ petitioner were declined:
(2.) Brief material facts for the disposal of the appeal are as follows: State of Kerala the first respondent, had issued Ext. P1 notification inviting applications for appointment to the post of a Full Time Member (General) at the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kottayam. Accordingly, the appellant applied for the post before the District Collector, Kottayam 3rd respondent, in the prescribed format. According to the appellant, he had the requisite qualifications as per Ext. P1 notification. Anyhow, pursuant to the application, the appellant was invited to attend an interview. The assumption made by the appellant about the interview is that he has performed well in the interview and the second respondent i.e., the Selection Committee for recommendation of the members of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum found that the appellant and the 4th respondent namely K.M. Anto were eligible to be appointed to the said post and accordingly, a list comprising the appellant and the 4th respondent was forwarded to the Government, evident from Ext. P4 minutes. However, the first respondent, by Ext. P5 order, appointed the 4th respondent as the member of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kottayam.
(3.) The case projected by the appellant was that the 4th respondent is a retired Non Cadre Police Officer and he is not having adequate knowledge and experience of at least 10 years in dealing with the problems relating to economics, law, commerce, accountancy, industry, public affairs or administration as is contemplated under Section 10(1)(b)(iii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ('Act, 1986' for brevity). It was also submitted that there is no practice of appointing a retired non Cadre Police Officer to the post of Member of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and other judicial or quasi judicial forum.