STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA Vs. MALAY KUMAR PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent No. 1 herein had applied for appointment as a Management Trainee (Technical) in the establishment of the Steel Authority of India and in connection with the said application, he had been called by the Company for a written test, interview and also for a medical test. It would appear that the Medical Officer who examined the respondent declared him to be medically unfit and in consequence, the respondent No. 1 was not selected as Management Trainee. Thereupon, the respondent filed a complaint before the State Commission, West Bengal, at Calcutta alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant -Company and claiming compensation for alleged loss, mental pain, etc. suffered by him. The State Commission allowed the complaint and awarded a compensation of Rs. 20,000/ - to the complainant. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant -Company has preferred this appeal before this Commission.

(2.) IN Industrial Development Bank of India v. Krishnemdu Ghosh & Anr., this Commission had occasion to consider the question whether an applicant for appointment in the Industrial Development Bank of India who had appeared for an interview before a Selection Committee after remitting a fee of Rs. 50/ -, but was not - selected for appointment was entitled to maintain a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act on the ground of deficiency in service, namely his non -selection for appointment to the post. It was held by this Commission that the amount paid as examination fee was intended only to defray a part of the expenses involved in conducting the written test and the interview and it did not constitute consideration for the hiring or availing of the services of the Company for selecting the complainant for the post in question. That case also arose from a similar order passed by the State Commission, West Bengal allowing the complaint filed by the complainant. In that case, this Commission allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order passed by the State Commission on the aforesaid ground. The said dictum is fully applicable to this case and applying the same, we hold that there was no hiring or availing of service for consideration by the appellant in relation to the process of selection to the post in question and there could not be said to be any deficiency in service so as to warrant award of any compensation to the complainant. This Appeal is accordingly allowed and the order of the State Commission is set aside and the complaint petition stands dismissed. No costs. Appeal allowed. -