SK ABOU SUFIYAN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner has challenged the legality, propriety and validity of the order by which opp. parties 1 and 5 have appointed opp. party No. 7 as the President of the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Bhadrak (In short "District Forum") on the ground, inter alia, that opp. party No. 7 practised fraud and misrepresentation while procuring the order of appointment in his favour.

(2.) OPP . party No. 3 issued an advertisement calling upon the candidates for the post of President, District Forum which were lying vacant in different districts of Orissa on 5.12.2000. The petitioner vis -a -vis opp. party No. 7 along with other candidates had applied for the post of President in the District forum, Bhadrak. Subsequently opp. party No. 5 issued a letter inviting the petitioner and other candidates to attend the interview. Petitioner as well as other candidates in terms thereof appeared in the interview where it is said that opp. party No. 7 was selected and was appointed as the President of District Forum, Bhadrak vide Notification dated 12th July, 2001. Being aggrieved by such appointment the petitioner who was a rival Candidate for the said post filed this case. It is stated, inter alia, that the appointment of opp. party No. 7 as President of the District Forum was illegal in as much as he was not practising in the bar from the date of his enrolment and as such he did not have the requisite qualification to submit an application for the said post. It has been further stated that opp. party No. 7 has been engaging himself in business by becoming an agent of Life Insurance Corporation of India and earns profits therefrom. Had these facts been brought to the notice of the appointing authority, they could not have appointed opp. party No. 7 as the President of the District Forum, Bhadrak.

(3.) OPP . parties 1, 2, 4 and 5 have filed counter wherein it is . stated that the State Govt. issued an advertisement to fill up the posts of District Presidents of different District Forums by inviting applications from the eligible candidates. Pursuant to the said advertisement the petitioner vis -a -vis opp. party No. 7 along with other candidates had submitted their applications for the post of President, District Forum, Bhadrak. Call letter was issued fixing a date of interview. Opp. party No. 7 had also filed an affidavit before the authorities setting therein that he was not involved in any political activities nor it shall prejudicially affect any person after his appointment. In the process of selection the cases of opp. party No. 7, the writ petitioner and other candidates were duly considered and finally opp. party No. 7 was placed in first position whereas one Balaram Nayak had secured second position. It is false to state that opp. party No. 7 had misrepresented the State Govt. and illegally procured an order of appointment as President. District Forum, Bhadrak. Opp. party No. 7 was enrolled as an Advocate since 27.11.1993, as such he was eligible for being selected as a District Judge, and therefore, his case was considered vis -a -vis of others in which opp. party No. 7 was selected. After opp. party No. 7 was selected as the President of District Forum, Bhadrak he submitted his joining report on 6.8.2001.