IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 1632 of 2008()
1. C.DEVARAJAN, T.C.10/949 (1) DEVAGEETHAM
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR APPOINTMENT
3. THE LAW SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
4. THE SECRETARY, FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES
5. M.K.ABDULLA SONA (MEMBER KERALA
For Petitioner :SRI.JOHNSON MANAYANI
For Respondent :SRI.T.V.GEORGE
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :03/11/2008
O R D E R
H.L.Dattu, C.J. & A.K.Basheer, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.A.No.1632 of 2008-D
--------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 3rd November, 2008
JUDGMENT
H.L.Dattu,C.J.
This Writ Appeal is directed against the orders passed by the
learned Single Judge in W.P.(C).No.11015 of 2008, dated 13th June, 2008. By the
impugned order, the learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition.
(2) Petitioner claims, that, he has higher rank when compared to
the 5th respondent, who is selected and appointed as Member of State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission. It was his further contention, that, the State
Government has selected a person who has secured a lesser rank than the
petitioner.
(3) Along with the writ petition papers, the petitioner himself had
produced Exhibit P4, which contains the panel of names recommended by the
Selection Committee. The Selection Committee, in the interview held by them
for selecting a candidate for appointment to the post of Member of State
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, has awarded 21 marks to each of the
four candidates who had participated in the selection process.
(4) The learned Single Judge, keeping in view, that, all the four
candidates who had participated in the selection process had secured equal marks
WA.1632 of 2008-D
– 2 –
and since the petitioner had not made any allegation of mala fide against any
member of the Selection Committee or against the State Government, was of the
opinion, that, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief and, accordingly, has
rejected the writ petition.
(5) We have also carefully perused Exhibit P4, which is a panel of
names suggested by the Selection Committee. Exhibit P4 would clearly indicate,
that, all the four candidates included in the panel furnished by the Selection
Committee have secured equal marks. Therefore, the contention of the appellant,
that, he was ranked first in the panel of names furnished by the Selection
Committee for appointment as Member of the State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission cannot be accepted. Keeping all these aspects of the
matter in view, the learned Single Judge, in our opinion, has rightly rejected the
writ petition. We do not find any infirmity in the orders passed by the learned
Single Judge, which would call for our interference in appeal. Therefore, the
Writ Appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected.
Ordered accordingly.
H.L.Dattu
Chief Justice
A.K.Basheer
vku/- Judge