Antony Dominic, J. The appellant was an applicant for the post of Member (General) of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pathanamthitta. The applications received were processed and the interview was scheduled on 03.09.2013 at Thiruvananthapuram. However, the interview was postponed and she was intimated of the same by telephone. Later, she came to know that the interview was held on 23.09.2013 without intimating her. When she came to know that the selection was being finalised and the 4th respondent who is the first rank holder, was going to be appointed, she filed the writ petition. Before the learned Single Judge, it was complained that the interview on 23.09.2013 was held without giving any intimation to her. Therefore, according to her, the selection was illegal and the whole exercise should be invalidated. However, the respondents contended that in the application submitted by the appellant, she did not specify the postal pin code and that as a result, they were unable to give intimation of the interview held on 23.09.2013 by registered post. It was submitted that in the circumstances, the intimation of the interview was sent to the appellant by the ordinary post and that it was thereafter that the interview was held on 23.09.2013 in which the appellant was absent. Therefore, according to them, there was no illegality on their part justifying invalidation of the selection conducted and the appointment of the 4th respondent. The learned single Judge by the impugned judgment accepted the case of the respondents and dismissed the writ petition. It is this judgment which is under challenge before us.
2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and also the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent.
3. Though the learned counsel for the appellant reiterated his contention that in the absence of any intimation to the appellant, the interview held on 23.09.2013 and the appointment made on that basis are illegal, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are unable to accept the contention. From Ext.R1(b), the application submitted by the appellant, it is evident that she did not specify the postal pin code. Though it is not the case of the appellant that under any rule framed for the purpose of selection, she was entitled to have been given notice of interview by the registered post, the respondents argue that in the absence of the pin code furnished by the appellant, they were unable to send her notice of interview by registered post and therefore, they could despatch the notice only by ordinary post. They have also brought to the satisfaction of the learned Single Judge that such a notice by ordinary post was, in fact, given to the appellant.
In such a situation, as rightly held by the learned Single Judge and that too in the absence of a case of malafides, we cannot say that the respondents have committed any illegality in conducting the interview on 23.09.2013 and finalising the selection and appointing the 4th respondent as member (General) in the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pathanamthitta. We, therefore, do not find any substance in the appeal. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
sd/-ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.
sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE.
rv