B PANDIAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Present Writ Petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorarai to quash the notification No.1 of 2009 dated 15.06.2009 issued by the second respondent Registrar, Tamil Nadu State Consumer Redressal Commission, Chennai, insofar as it imposes age restriction for advocates to partake in the selection process to the post of President, District Consumer Dispute Redressal Fora.

(2.) The petitioner being a practicing advocate from 1984 is aggrieved by the notification No.1/2009 issued by the second respondent calling for application to fill up the post of President in District Consumer Redressal Fora by fixing the age limit that a lawyer should not have completed 48 years of age for SC/ST and 45 years in the case of other candidates as on 01.07.2009. The bone of contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner for the same work a retired District Judge is promoted to assume office till he completes the age of 65 years of age as on 01.07.2009 but in the case of Advocates age restrictions are imposed as 48 years for SC/ST and 45 years for other candidates which is hit by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The age restriction for lawyers at 48 years for SC/ST and 45 years for BC/OBC/FC for selection to the post of President in Consumer District Redressal Forum is against Section 10 (1A) of the Consumer Protection Act. Further, it was also urged that the notification No.1/2009 dated 15.06.2009 prima facie violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as the qualified and experienced persons are excluded from the purview of selection itself. In his further submission it is stated that when the object of selection in judiciary is to secure the best available legal brains, fixing up of age limit namely 48 years for SC/ST candidates and 45 years for BC and other community candidates and appointment of District Judges irrespective of the fact where he has reached 48 years or 45 years and permitting the District Judges to work till the age of 65 years is a complete discrimination which is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, it was urged that the notification No.1/2009 dated 15.06.2009 being violative of Article 14 is without any justification and on that basis assail the same to be quashed.

(3.) Further, it was contended that the impugned notification is also contrary to section 10 (1A) of the Consumer Protection Act. As per section 10 (1A) of the Act, qualification to become a District Judge is 7 years as a practicing lawyer. While so, if a District Judge is appointed as a President of the District Consumer Commission he is entitled to retire after completing a period of 5 years or upto the age of 65 years, which ever is earlier. Whereas the impugned notification prescribing not to appoint lawyer on completing 48 years of age for SC/ST and 45 years of age for other is without justification and therefore the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has not only complained of discriminatory treatment but also violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.