STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION Vs. P LALITHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -We find that there is force in the contention advanced by the Counsel for the Revision Petitioner-Staff Selection Commission, Madras- that no arrangement of hiring of service for consideration can be said to have been entered into when a candidate aspiring for selection for appointment to some post in Government Service applies to the Staff Selection Commission for such selection. The grievance of the Complainant before the District Forum was that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Staff Selection Commission in as much as the candidate concerned did not receive the hall ticket necessary to enable her to appear for the selection test. The said plea ought not to have been accepted by the District Forum as constituting a deficiency in service on the part of the Staff Selection Commission. The resultant position is that there was no 'consumer dispute' at all which could legitimately have been brought up for adjudication before the District Forum and the grant of any relief to the Complainant was totally without jurisdiction. We may also point out that the relief actually granted by the District Forum and confirmed by the State Commission, namely, the issuance of a direction to the Staff Selection Commission to hold a fresh examination for testing the suitability of the Complainant for her being selected to the particular category of post is outside the scope of Clauses (a) to (d) of Section 14(1) of the Consumer Protection Act and the District Forum and the State Commission must be held to have acted totally without jurisdiction in granting the said relief. For the reasons mentioned above, we allow the Revision Petition, set aside the orders passed by the State Commission and the District Forum and dismiss the Complaint Petition. The parties will bear their respective costs throughout. Revision Petition allowed.