A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar JUDGMENT
A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.
1. The petitioners in these writ petitions are aspirants for the posts of President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as 'DCDRF'). They comprise of persons who have held the office of President DCDRF in the past, Retired District Judges and persons who are qualified to be appointed as District Judges. They are aggrieved by the selection procedure that was followed by the State Government in connection with appointments made to the posts of President of the DCDRF's in Thiruvananthapuram, Pathanamthitta, Kannur, Kozhikode, Ernakulam, Thrissur, Idukki and Palakkad districts of the State.
2. The facts in the writ petitions would indicate that the State Government had, by a letter dated 08.12.2013, requested the High Court to forward a panel of qualified persons comprising of sitting District Judges/retired District Judges and persons qualified to be appointed as District Judges for considering them for appointment to the posts of President in the eight DCDRF's mentioned above. On receipt of the said letter, the High Court, through an Official Memorandum dated 17.01.2014 addressed to the Principal District Judges of the 14 Districts in the State, requested them to circulate the Government letter to all subordinate courts and bar associations in their district and to obtain and forward the Biodata of eligible candidates who were willing to be considered for appointment to the posts in question. Thereafter, on receipt of applications from candidates, the High Court forwarded the same to the Government. It would appear that, thereafter, the selection committee that was constituted to prepare a select list of eligible candidates for forwarding to the State Government conducted an interview at Thiruvananthapuram, between 8th and 9th of October, 2014. The said committee prepared separate lists, comprising of five candidates each, for each of the 8 districts where an appointment to the post of President of the DCDRF was contemplated. These lists were then forwarded to the State Government for its consideration for appointment to the vacant posts of President of the DCDRF. The State Government, thereafter, selected eight persons to be appointed as Presidents of the DCDRF in the eight districts mentioned above, and their appointments were duly notified through separate Notifications dated 23.12.2014. As already noticed, the said appointments are challenged in the writ petitions wherein the persons appointed have also been impleaded as respondents.
3. The main grounds of challenge, against the above selection process that was undertaken by the Government, are as follows:
"• The selection process was undertaken in a manner that lacked transparency. The selection was made solely based on an interview conducted by the selection committee and there was no rank list prepared of candidates who had attended the interview. Even the interview was conducted in haste and a total of 93 candidates were interviewed in just two days.
• The panel of eligible candidates that was to be drawn up for forwarding to the State Government had to be one that was prepared category wise, as mandated in Rule 7 of the Kerala Consumer Protection Rules. In the instant case, while such a panel was not drawn up, the selection committee proceeded to draw up separate panels of five candidates each for each of the eight districts where an appointment was to be made to the post of President of the DCDRF.
• In the matter of selection of a candidate to the post of President of the DCDRF, a requirement of consultation with the High Court had to be read into the provisions of the Consumer Disputes Act. As per the provisions of the Act, a person seeking appointment to the post of President of the DCDRF had to be a Sitting District Judge, a retired District judge or a person qualified to be appointed as a District Judge. The qualifications prescribed for the post, therefore, unambiguously indicate that the post in question is a judicial post and it's functioning akin to that of a Court dealing with civil and criminal matters. Similarly, the powe........