IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 13TH JUNE 2008 / 23RD JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 11015 of 2008(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ C.DEVARAJAN, T.C.10/949(1) DEVAGEETHAM, AMBALATHUNADA, MUKKOLA.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 044. BY ADV. SRI.J.HARIKUMAR SRI.HARIKUMAR.S. RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECR, FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,TVPM,REPR, BY ITS CHAIRMAN (PRESIDENT OF THE KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,SISUVIHAR LANE, VAZHUTHACADU, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE LAW SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE SECRETARY, FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. M.K.ABDULLA SONA, HOUSE NO.1152 (A), CIVIL LANE'S ROAD, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR. BY GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 11015 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 13th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was a candidate for the post of Member of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. However, he was not selected. Instead the 5th respondent was selected. The petitioner approaches this court with a contention that the petitioner was higher in rank than the 5th respondent and going by the decision of this Court in Chandramohan Nair v. State of Kerala reported in 2007 (2) KLT 273, if the Government is to select a person lower in rank, appropriate reasons should be mentioned. At the time when this writ petition was moved, this court directed the petitioner to move the writ petition after obtaining information under the Right to Information Act regarding the rank assigned to the petitioner and the 5th respondent in the interview conducted. The petitioner has now produced documents obtained by him by resort to the proceedings under the Right to Information Act. Ext.P4 is the copy of the rank list so obtained by the petitioner. Going by the w.p.c.11015/08 2 same, in the panel forwarded to the Government there were four persons including the petitioner and the 5th respondent. All of them secured the same marks, viz., 21 marks. As such, the contention of the petitioner that he was higher in rank, is clearly wrong. When a panal of four persons with the same rank is forwarded to the Government, the Government has to naturally select one of them from the four. The Government has selected the 5th respondent. Unless the petitioner alleges and proves mala fides on the part of the Government in selecting the 5th respondent, the petitioner cannot succeed in this writ petition. The petitioner has no case of mala fides in this case. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.11015/08 3