PRIYA AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners herein have called in question legality, validity and correctness of the advertisement issued by respondent No.1 inviting applications for the vacant posts of President, District Commission for the districts of Raigarh, Surguja (Ambikapur), Koriya (Baikunthpur), Kabirdham (Kawardha), Dhamtari and Rajnandgaon, total six posts, and selection process conducted therein for the said posts, principally on the ground that rejection of their candidature for the said posts holding them to be over-aged, is contrary to Rule 4 of the Consumer Protection (Qualification for appointment, method of recruitment, procedure of appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of the President and members of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020 (for short, 'the Rules of 2020') and is liable to be quashed, and also on the ground that the Chhattisgarh Lok Seva (Anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusuchit Jan Jatiyon Aur Anya Pichhade Vargon Ke Liye Arakshan) Adhiniyam, 1994 (for short, 'the Act of 1994') has not been followed and privilege of reservation has not been extended to petitioner No.3 being OBC candidate, therefore, it is liable to be quashed. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following backdrop: -

(2.) It is the case of petitioner No.1 that she is basically an Advocate and had 12 years experience as Advocate and she was earlier posted as Member of Raipur District Commission and having experience of 8 years as Member of the Raipur District Commission and presently also working as Member of District Commission, Raipur and applied for the post of President of District Commission, Dhamtari. It is the case of petitioner No.2 that he is having experience of 20 years as an Advocate and is presently working as Member of Raipur District Commission and he has applied for the post of President, District Commission, Rajnandgaon. It is the case of petitioner No.3 that he is an Advocate of 12 years experience and earlier, he held the post of Member of District Commission from 11/8/2010 to 11/8/2015 and from 1/2/2016 to 8/6/2020 and presently, he is posted as Member of State Commission since 10/6/2020, and being an OBC candidate, he is also entitled for the privilege of reservation and the benefit of age relaxation on appointment for the post of President, District Commission and applied for the post of President, District Commission, Raigarh.

(3.) The Rules of 2020 have been promulgated by the Central Government in exercise of its rule making power conferred under Ss. 29 and 43 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by which qualifications for appointment of President and Member of District Commission have been prescribed and it has clearly been provided that a person shall not be qualified for appointment as President, unless he is, or has been, or is qualified to be a District Judge. Qualification for the post of District Judge has been prescribed under clause (2) of Article 233 of the Constitution of India wherein it has been prescribed that a person not already appointed in the Union or the State shall only be eligible to be appointed a district judge if he has been for not less than seven years an advocate or a pleader and is recommended by the High Court for appointment.