Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 118 (ORI)

Subash Chandra Mahatab v. State of Orissa

2010-02-25

A.S.NAIDU, B.N.MAHAPATRA

body2010
JUDGMENT A.S. NAIDU, J. — An advertisement was issued for filling up of the post of President and Members of different District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums of the State and Member of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cuttack and was pub¬lished in daily ‘Samaj’ on 24.6.2009 (Annexure-4). The dispute in this writ petition is with regard to filling up of the post of Member of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cuttack. The said post was opened for all. The eligibility criteria and other paraphernalias for filling up of the said posts were clear¬ly spelt out in the advertisement under Annexure-4. In consonance with the said advertisement, the petitioner along with many other applied. After scrutiny of the applications and on being satis¬fied that the petitioner was otherwise eligible, he was called upon by letter dated 9.11.2009 (Annexure-5) to appear before the selection committee for interview on 5.12.2009. He attended the interview on 5.12.2009. Thereafter, he received another letter on 16.12.2009 (Annexure-7) requesting him to appear before the selec¬tion committee once again on 21.12.2009 for the second round of interview. Being aggrieved by the said action, the petitioner filed this writ petition praying as follows:- “xx xx xx xx And after hearing the counsels of the parties issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other suitable writ quashing the impugned letter (Annexure-7), directing the Opp. Parties to complete the process of selection and appoint the petitioner as a Member of the Orissa State C.D.R. Commission within a period fixed by the Hon’ble Court prior to 28.2.2010. Direct the Opp. Parties not to tag the petitioner with the second interview scheduled to be held on 21.12.2009 in pursuance of the advertisement, Annexure-5.” 2. According to Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner, neither the Consumer Protection Act nor the Rules framed thereunder contemplate any provision to conduct the second round of interview. Drawing the attention to the advertisement (Annexure-4), Mr. Nayak submitted that in the said advertisement also, there was no stipulation to hold any second interview and as such, it is prayed that the second round of interview having been arranged with ulterior motive, the same should be quashed. 3. After receiving notice, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite parties 1 and 2. Most of the facts are admitted. 3. After receiving notice, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite parties 1 and 2. Most of the facts are admitted. In paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that in response to the advertisement (Annexure-4) 26 applications were received for the post of Member, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack. All of them were called upon to attend the interview, which was scheduled to be held on 5.12.2009. Out of 28 candidates, 23 appeared in the interview. In view of the fact that large number of candidates appeared, the selection committee decided to short-list the candidates at the first round of interview. Accordingly after completion of the first round, four candidates were short-listed and all the four including the petitioner were called upon to attend the second round of interview. It is stated that neither there was any mala fide nor any evil intention and the allegation to that effect are unfounded. 4. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner strongly repudiating the facts stated in the counter. According to the petitioner, 23 candidates appeared in the interview and it is not a fact that large number of candidates appeared. It is further submitted that there was no impediment for the selection committee to select one candidate out of 26. According to Mr. Nayak, the entire endeavour of the opposite parties is to delay the interview as long as possible so as to prejudice the peti¬tioner. 5. To appreciate the modalities in past years, this Court also called upon the learned counsel for the State to produce the file dealing with the selection. A perusal of the file also reveals that at no point of time (in past) the procedure of short-listing of candidates was adopted. 6. The advertisement in the present case is totally silent about short-listing. The Act and Rules also do not make any stipulation for short-listing of any candidates. In fact it could not have contained such a stipulation in view of the fact that the rules do not contain any such provision. In the case of Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Navnit Kumar Potdar and another, AIR 1995 SC 77 , the Supreme Court observed that as the interview of a large number of candidates would make the exercise casual and superficial short-listing of candidates was allowed. In the case of Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Navnit Kumar Potdar and another, AIR 1995 SC 77 , the Supreme Court observed that as the interview of a large number of candidates would make the exercise casual and superficial short-listing of candidates was allowed. But then, in the case in hand, there were only 23 candi¬dates and in fact the interview was held and out of them four candidates were selected and thus, this Court fails to understand as to why the final selection was not complete and second round of interview was felt necessary. 7. In the case of Sushanta Kumar Sethi and another v. District Judge, Puri and others, 2006 (Suppl.) Vol-II OLR 178, this Court relying upon several decisions of the Supreme Court held that in the absence of any clause in the advertisement and specific provision in the recruitment rules, short listing was not justified. 8. Taking into consideration the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the exercise taken to conduct second round of interview for the post of Member, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack was not just and proper or in consonance with law being contrary to the provisions of the Act and Rules as well as the advertise¬ment. Consequently, the decision to conduct second round of interview for the said post is quashed. The authorities are directed to select the candidates out of the list prepared in the first round of interview. The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably by the first week of March. 9. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. B.N. MAHAPATRA, J. I agree. Petition allowed.