SUBASH CHANDRA MAHATAB Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An advertisement was issued for filling up of the post of President and Members of different District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums of the State and Member of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cuttack and was published in daily 'Samaj' on 24.6.2009 (Annexure-4). The dispute in this writ petition is with regard to filling up of the post of Member of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cuttack. The said post was opened for all. The eligibility criteria and other paraphernalias for filling up of the said posts were clearly spelt out in the advertisement under Annexure-4. In consonance with the said advertisement, the petitioner along with many other applied. After scrutiny of the applications and on being satisfied that the petitioner was otherwise eligible, he was called upon by letter dated 9.11.2009 (Annexure-5) to appear before the selection committee for interview on 5.12.2009, He attended the interview on 5.12.2009. Thereafter, he received another letter on 16.12.2009 (Annexure 7) requesting him to appear before the selection committee once again on 21.12.2009 for the second round of interview. Being aggrieved by the said action, the petitioner filed this writ petition praying as follows:

(2.) According to Mr. Nayak, learned Counsel for the petitioner, neither the Consumer Protection Act nor the Rules framed thereunder contemplate any provision to conduct the second round of interview. Drawing the attention to the advertisement (Annexure-4), Mr. Nayak submitted that in the said advertisement also, there was no stipulation to hold any second interview and as such, it is prayed that the second round of interview having been arranged with ulterior motive, the same should be quashed.

(3.) After receiving notice, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite parties 1 and 2. Most of the facts are admitted. In paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that in response to the advertisement (Annexure-4) 26 applications were received for the post of Member, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack. All of them were called upon to attend the interview, which was scheduled to be held on 5.12.2009. Out of 28 candidates, 23 appeared in the interview. In view of the fact that large number of candidates appeared, the selection committee decided to short-list the candidates at the first round of interview. Accordingly after completion of the first round, four candidates were short-listed and all the four including the petitioner were called upon to attend the second round of interview. It is stated that neither there was any mala fide nor any evil intention and the allegation to that effect are unfounded.