1. The petitioner is aggrieved with the selection procedure, adopted by the Government for filling up the vacant post of a woman member in the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pathanamthitta. The selection was notified as per Ext.P5. Ext.P5 indicated the essential qualifications for a woman member as enumerated in Section 10(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioner applied under the notification and the petitioner was also found to be eligible to be considered for the post, having satisfied the qualifications as stipulated in the Act. Later the petitioner was informed that the District Collector is intending to short list 5 candidates from among the 25 who applied. The petitioner was before this Court challenging the short listing attempted. This Court granted a stay of selection till the disposal of the writ petition.

2. The question hence is only on the procedure as prescribed in the Act and the Rules. The petitioner has also raised a challenge to the rule prescribing short listing by the District Collector; Rule 7 of the Consumer Protection (Kerala) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Kerala Rules'). The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the selection has to be done by the selection committee under Section 10(1A) of the Act. The President of the State Commission, Law Secretary and the Secretary in-charge of consumer affairs are respectively Chairman and Members of the Selection Committee. If at all, short listing has to be done, it has to be done by the Selection Committee itself is the argument.

3. The petitioner challenges Rule 7 in so far as it authorises the Convenor of the Selection Committee being the District Collector to short list 5 candidates per vacancy before the applicants are scrutinised by the Selection Committee. The rule is violative of Article 16 of the Constitution and ultra vires the Act. Section 30 confers power respectively by sub sections (1) & (2) on the Central Government and the State Government to make rules for effective implementation of the provisions separately enumerated in the respective subsections. The State Government is not conferred with a power to prescribe a procedure under sub-section 1A of Section 10; is the compelling argument.

4. The learned Government Pleader relies on two decisions of this Court. One by a learned Single Judge dated 25.09.2017 in WP(C) No. 9221/2017 Renu P. Gopalan Vs. State of Kerala and the other by a Division Bench reported in State of Kerala & others v. K.Reghu Varma and others [2009(3) KHC 582]. The learned Government Pleader would submit that it is trite that in conducting a selection, only 3 to 4 times the number of posts available need be called for the interview. In the present case, there was only one post and there were 25 applications. It was hence there was short listing carried on by the District Collector. It is also submitted that the procedure adopted by the District Collector was transparent, judicious and perfectly in order. The Court is invited to look into the manner in which the short listing was carried out.

5. The learned Government Pleader would submit that in Renu.P, the challenge against the rule was considered and negatived by harmonising the rule with the provisions in the statute. It was held that the Convenor of the Selection Committee, has to carry out the short listing on the modality as prescribed by the Selection Committee. It is also submitted that the Government has a specific power to prescribe dis. qualification as per sub-clause (f) of Section 10(1), which the Government has conferred on the District Collector as per the rules.

6. Renu. P sought a direction to make appointment to the vacancy arising in the State Commission; for which a selection as per the Act and the Rules was conducted. The Government defended the case on the ground that the selection itself is liable to be cancelled for not complying with the statutory provisions. The g