Sunanda Shivaputrayya Kadrolimath vs The Under Secretary to Government of Karnataka Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department and Others

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—The petitioner has approached this court calling in question the notification bearing No. ANS.57.SLR-2014 dated 27.06.2015 issued by Respondent No. 1 as per Annexure-A.

The notification at Annexure-A is issued by the 1st respondent notifying the names of the successful women candidates who have been selected and appointed for the post of the Member of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at different places. It is submitted by the petitioner that she was also one of the contestants. It is also submitted that the petitioner was enrolled as an Advocate in the year 1989 and she has been working as a Member of the Belagavi District Consumer Forum since from 01.09.2010. On 19.01.2015, the Respondent No. 2 by his letter bearing No. KSC/ADM/02/2015 recommended the name of the petitioner for the post of a Member (Non-Judicial) in the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, New Delhi, considering her efficiency.

The respondent has issued a notification dated 12.03.2015 calling applications for appointment to the vacant posts of Members in various District Consumer Forums. The petitioner had also applied for the said post and she appeared for the interview on 28.05.2015 before the Selection Committee at Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Basava Bhavan, High Grounds, Bengaluru. However, she was not successful and the notification was issued vide Annexure-A notifying names of the selected candidates. It is the contention of the petitioner that, she has been working as a Member in the Belagavi District Consumer Forum since from 01.09.2010 and the tenure of the petitioner ends on 01.09.2015. It is her contention that she has got very rich experience in the said field as she has been working as a Member in the District Consumer Forum and it is one of the additional qualification for her to be selected and appointed once again for the said post. The learned Counsel also contended before this court that the petitioner is very meritorious and she answered all the questions in the interview and in spite of that, she was not selected and therefore, she challenges the said notification before this court.

As could be seen from the grounds urged in the petition, though it is stated that the notification issued by Respondent No. 2 calling for the posts of Members in District Consumer Forums in the State, itself is wrong and incorrect, but there is no explanation or clarification in the writ petition as to what is the illegality committed in issuing such notification. The learned Counsel has also brought to my notice Section-10(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Sub-clause (2) of Section-10 of the said Act says that,-

"Sec.10,- every member of the District Forum shall hold office for a term of 5 years or up to the age of 65 years, whichever is earlier.

Provided that a member shall be eligible for re-appointment for another term of 5 years or upto the age of 65 years, whichever is earlier, subject to the condition that he/she fulfils the qualifications and other conditions for appointment mentioned in clause(b) of sub-section (1) and such respondent-appointment is also made on the basis of the recommendation of the Selection-Committee.

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx"

The learned Counsel for the petitioner relying on the above said provision submits that, the petitioner should have been selected for the post of Member of the District Consumer Forum because, she is eligible under Section 10(2) of the said Act.

A perusal of Annexure-A reveals that the 2nd respondent has issued the said notification, notifying the names of the candidates who have been selected for appointment to the post of the Member of the District Consumer Forum. The petitioner has not shown to the court as to how the appointment made by the 2nd respondent as per Annexure-A is illegal or whether the authority has committed any procedural irregularity or illegality and no malafides alleged. Though the petitioner is a qualified eligible candidate and she has already served as the Member of the Consumer Redressal Forum at Belagavi, those qualifications themselves are not sufficient to mandatorily appoint her to the said post. It is ultimately left to the discretion of the committee which conducts the interview of the candidates to select the meritorious candidates for the said post. As the things stand thus, how the interview was conducted, what questions have been put to the candidates and how the candidates have fared in the interview, are all within the knowledge of the Committee and it is purely the discretion of the committee to select the meritorious candidates and such confidential method of interview conducted by the Committee cannot be called in question before the court. Therefore, I am of the opinion that unless it is shown to the court that any irregularity, illegality and malafides have been committed in not selecting and appointing the petitioner to the said post, the genuineness of the notification (Annexure-A), cannot be called in question before the court.

In the above said circumstances, I do not find any strong reasons to entertain this petition. The petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold, without issuing any notice to the respondents. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.