S V VASUDEVAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is an advocate practising at Erode. He is aged about 58 years. He enrolled himself as an Advocate on 17.8.1983 and has been practising in Erode from the said date onwards. THE Registrar, Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission issued Notification No.1 of 2009 inviting applications for appointment to the post of Presidents in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Fora to be made by direct recruitment under Section 10(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. As we are concerned with qualifications, the same is reproduced hereunder:- Qualifications:-Retired District Judges: Retired as District Judge on superannuation Advocates:

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that no age restriction is is prescribed for the District Judges to apply for the post of President. On the other hand in the case of Advocates alone, age limit of 48 years in the case of SC/ST candidates and 45 years in the case of others as on 1.7.2009 is prescribed.

(3.) IN response to the above submission, Mr.T.Murugamanickam the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Act being a Central enactment, the qualification and the eligibility norms prescribed under Section 10 of the Act would apply even to the retired District Judges of other others States and for that matter even the Advocates from other states. There cannot be such anomaly. Since the relevant rules for appointment to the post of President for the other states are also applicable to those candidates and in all probability those qualifications may also vary and the restriction on age limit to advocates is discriminatory.