RAGHU VARMA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayers in this writ petition are to quash Exts.P2 and P3 notifications issued by the 1st respondent appointing respondents 4 and 5 as Presidents of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Kottayam and Wynad respectively. Petitioner also seeks a declaration that he is eligible to be appointed as the President of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum based on his ranking in Ext.P1 panel.

(2.) In December, 2006, in terms of Section 10 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as Act ) and Rule 7(2) of the Kerala Consumer Protection Rules 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules 2005 ), the 2nd respondent invited applications for filling up the posts of President of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (CDRF) at Kottayam and Wynad. In response to the said notification, among others, the petitioner submitted his application. As per Section 10(1A) of the Act, the candidates were interviewed by a Selection Committee consisting of the President of the State Commission as its Chairman and the two members specified in the Section on 2/4/2007, 10/5/2007 and 11/5/2007. From Exts.P5 and P6, the marklists maintained by the Chairman and another member of the Selection Committee, obtained by the petitioner invoking the provisions of the Right to Information Act, it would appear that on interview, performance of the candidates was assessed and marks were awarded. In so far as the marks awarded by the Chairman is concerned, Ext.P5 shows that the petitioner, who was interviewed on 2.4.2007 was awarded 35 marks while the respondents 4 and 5, who were interviewed on 10th and 11th of May, 2007 respectively, were awarded 13 and 12 marks each. Similarly, in Ext.P6 marklist, the other member of the Selection Committee awarded 30 marks to the petitioner while respondents 4 and 5 were awarded 25 and 24 marks respectively. In the reply affidavit filed, it is stated that the marks awarded by the second member of the Committee were not disclosed to the petitioner and therefore, is not placed on record.

(3.) On conclusion of the interview, as provided in Rule 7(3) of the Rules 2005, the Selection Committee submitted Ext.P1, a panel of 10 qualified candidates to the 1st respondent for consideration of appointment. In the said panel of 10, prepared in the order of merit, the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 are at Sl.Nos.1, 9 and 10 respectively. Ext.P4 is the circulation note of the 1st respondent, from which it is seen that the file was circulated to the Minister (Food, Civil Supplies and Animal Husbandry) for nomination of two candidates to the two posts notified. Accordingly the Minister passed order dated 14/6/2007, which reads as under. The following persons may be posted as Presidents in Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums in the districts noted against them.