Dismissed

Anil.P.v. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Jan 2008WA/3017/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Writ Appeal was filed by an aspirant for President of a District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. He challenged the learned Single Judge 's order dismissing his petition for directing appointment to be referred for interview. The High Court rejected the appeal, observing that the aspirant had not filed an application to the competent authority, thus having no grievance.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Appeal is rejected with no direction to the respondent to include the appellant in the interview panel.

Anil.P.v. Vs State of Kerala — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JANUARY 2008 / 12TH POUSHA 1929

¶6

WA.No. 3017 of 2007

¶7

¶8

(AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 1.12.2007 IN W.P.(C). 35630/2007)

¶9

APPELLANT /PETITIONER:

¶10

¶11

ANIL P.V., SREELAKSHMI, ARA/102, ATTUKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND

¶13

RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS:

¶14

¶15

THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,

¶16

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶17

THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REP. BY THE REGISTRAR, ERNAKULAM.

¶18

THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMERS AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶19

THE REGISTRAR/SECRETARY, KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VAZHUTHAKKAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶20

THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶21

BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K. MEERA.

¶22

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

H.L. DATTU, CJ. & K.M. JOSEPH, J.

¶24

- - - - WRIT APPEAL No. 3017 of 2007

¶25

- - - - Dated this the 2nd day of January, 2008.

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

H.L.DATTU, CJ,

¶28

An aspirant to the post of President of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, being aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 35630 of 2007 dated 1^st of December, 2007 is before us in this Writ Appeal.

¶29

In the writ petition filed, the petitioner has stated that he is a practising Advocate in the High Court of Kerala for the last ten years. According to him, he has all the eligibility qualifications for appointment to the post of President of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. It is his further grievance that he had sent an application to the Registrar of this Court inter alia requesting him to consider his case and then include his name in the panel of persons to be appointed to the post of President of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. It is his further case that the Registrar of this Court has failed to consider his application and further has failed to recommend his name for appointment to the aforesaid post. Therefore, he is before this court for a direction to the respondents in the writ petition to allow the petitioner to appear for the interview being conducted pursuant to Ext.P2 Circular.

¶30

The learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition on the ground that at no point of time the petitioner had filed any application before the competent authority, and therefore, the petitioner cannot have any grievance in not suggesting his name for the post of President of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. The learned Judge has also noticed that the petitioner had only filed a

¶31

WA.3017/2007. 2

¶32

representation dated 25.11.2007 and further this court has already forwarded a panel of names to the third respondent for appointment to the post of President of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.

¶33

The aspirant, if he is interested for appointment to a particular post, he is expected to make appropriate application. In the absence of such an application, he cannot blame others in not recommending his name for the post, which he aspires for. Keeping this aspect in view and also taking into consideration that except filing a representation, the petitioner had not filed any application for the post he intends to be appointed, the learned Single Judge, in our opinion, has rightly rejected the writ petition. We do not see any error or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the Writ Appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected.

¶34

Ordered accordingly.

¶35

H.L. DATTU, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶36

K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE

¶37

sb.

Anil.P.v. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil.P.v. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.v.Babu Vs Biju Sebastian

State of Kerala Vs M/S.Velayudhan Pillai

A.Thajudeen Vs State of Kerala

Ytate of Kerala Vs a.Younus Kunju

Baby Sindhu Vs State of Kerala

Baby Sindhu Vs State of Kerala