RENU P.GOPALAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The decision of the Government to cancel a selection process initiated for appointment of a Member in the State Commission established under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the Act), is under challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) The facts relevant for consideration of the questions raised in the writ petition are the following: The term of one of the Members of the State Commission was due to expire on 14.05.2016. With a view to fill up that vacancy, the Government initiated a selection process well in advance during February, 2016 itself by issuing Ext.P3 notification inviting applications for selection. The said selection process was, however, put to hold when the code of conduct for the election declared later to the State Legislative Assembly came into being. It is seen that the term of appointment of the Members of the Commission was stated wrongly in Ext.P3 notification and consequently, after the election, a fresh selection process was initiated on 10.08.2016 by issuing Ext.P1 notification inviting applications for selection. The petitioner was one among the applicants for selection pursuant to Ext.P1 notification. 49 applications were received by the Government pursuant to Ext.P1 notification and all the 49 applications were forwarded by the Government to the Selection Committee provided for under Section 16(1A) of the Act for conducting the selection. The Selection Committee, thereupon, interviewed 35 candidates who have turned up for the interview out of the 49 candidates applied for selection and forwarded its recommendation to the Government. The recommendation made by the Selection Committee was, however, not acted upon by the Government. In the meanwhile, on 08.03.2017, when W.P.(C).No.6640 of 2017, filed by a body called Confederation of Consumer Redressal Centre seeking directions to fill up the vacancies of the Members in the State Commission, came up for consideration before this Court, it was submitted on behalf of the Government that the Government has decided to cancel the selection process initiated pursuant to Ext.P1 notification on account of inherent infirmities and illegalities. It was also submitted before this Court on behalf of the Government that a fresh selection process will be commenced and concluded expeditiously to fill up the vacancies. In the light of the said submissions made on behalf of the Government, this Court closed the said writ petition recording the submissions made on behalf of the Government, observing that if the Government is of the view that the selection process initiated can be cancelled without prejudice to the rights of others, they are free to do so. Ext.P2 is the judgment rendered by this Court in the said writ petition. This writ petition is instituted thereafter, seeking directions to the Government to effect appointment on the basis of the recommendation made by the Selection Committee pursuant to Ext.P1 notification. The case set up by the petitioner in the writ petition is that there are no justifiable reasons at all for cancelling the selection.

(3.) When the writ petition came up for admission, it was pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that the selection process initiated pursuant to Ext.P1 notification has been cancelled by the Government as per Ext.P4 order. It is stated by the Government in Ext.P4 order that the selection process was vitiated since the applicants were not shortlisted before the interview, as provided for in Rule 17(3) of the Kerala Consumer Protection Rules, 2005 (the Rules). The petitioner, thereupon, amended the writ petition in terms of the order passed by this Court in I.A.No.5538 of 2017 and incorporated a challenge against Ext.P4 order also in the writ petition. After the filing of I.A.No.5538 of 2017, the Government corrected a few mistakes crept in Ext.P4 order, by Ext.P5 order. Immediately thereupon, a fresh notification was also published by the Government inviting applications for selection through the District Collectors as per Ext.P6, as provided for in Rule 17 (3) of the Rules. In the light of the aforesaid developments, the writ petition was amended by the petitioner again, in terms of the order passed by this Court in I.A.No.9698 of 2017 for challenging Ext.P5 order and Ext.P6 notification. The amendment carried out in terms of the latter order includes a challenge against Rule 17(3) of the Rules also on the grounds that the same is ultra vires the Act and also unconstitutional.