N. PREMKUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in these writ petitions are aspirants for the posts of President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as 'DCDRF'). They comprise of persons who have held the office of President DCDRF in the past, Retired District Judges and persons who are qualified to be appointed as District Judges. They are aggrieved by the selection procedure that was followed by the State Government in connection with appointments made to the posts of President of the DCDRF's in Thiruvananthapuram, Pathanamthitta, Kannur, Kozhikode, Ernakulam, Thrissur, Idukki and Palakkad districts of the State.

(2.) THE facts in the writ petitions would indicate that the State Government had, by a letter dated 08.12.2013, requested the High Court to forward a panel of qualified persons comprising of sitting District Judges/retired District Judges and persons qualified to be appointed as District Judges for considering them for appointment to the posts of President in the eight DCDRF's mentioned above. On receipt of the said letter, the High Court, through an Official Memorandum dated 17.01.2014 addressed to the Principal District Judges of the 14 Districts in the State, requested them to circulate the Government letter to all subordinate courts and bar associations in their district and to obtain and forward the Biodata of eligible candidates who were willing to be considered for appointment to the posts in question. Thereafter, on receipt of applications from candidates, the High Court forwarded the same to the Government. It would appear that, thereafter, the selection committee that was constituted to prepare a select list of eligible candidates for forwarding to the State Government conducted an interview at Thiruvananthapuram, between 8th and 9th of October, 2014. The said committee prepared separate lists, comprising of five candidates each, for each of the 8 districts where an appointment to the post of President of the DCDRF was contemplated. These lists were then forwarded to the State Government for its consideration for appointment to the vacant posts of President of the DCDRF. The State Government, thereafter, selected eight persons to be appointed as Presidents of the DCDRF in the eight districts mentioned above, and their appointments were duly notified through separate Notifications dated 23.12.2014. As already noticed, the said appointments are challenged in the writ petitions wherein the persons appointed have also been impleaded as respondents. The main grounds of challenge, against the above selection process that was undertaken by the Government, are as follows:

(3.) I have heard Sri. Chandrasekhar and Sri. Thomas Abraham, learned counsel for the petitioners in all these writ petitions and Sri. P.K. Suresh Kumar and Sri. Jaju Babu, learned Senior Counsel, Sri. Madhusoodhanan, Sri. Sergi Joseph Thomas, Sri. Rajat, Sri Ajith Prakash and Sri. C.S. Manilal, the learned Senior Government Pleader, on behalf of the respondents.