JASBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of two Letters Patent Appeals bearing Nos. 877 and 878 of 2013, as identical issues are involved therein. The facts are briefly extracted from LPA No. 877 of 2013.

(2.) The appellant impugns the order dated 29.4.2013 whereby the learned Single Judge, his writ petition challenging the condition of requirement of Rs. 3 lacs per annum or more as professional income for an Advocate to be eligible for the post of President of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in the State of Haryana, has been dismissed.

(3.) The appellant had challenged the aforesaid condition on the premise that requirement of Rs. 3 lacs per annum or more professional income by an Advocate was wholly arbitrary, irrational and it violates the doctrine of proportionality as well as it does not satisfy the test of Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution. The learned Single Judge took notice of the fact that an Advocate with not less than 10 years standing is eligible for the subject post, hence the prescription of professional income of Rs. 3 lacs per annum was neither un-reasonable nor arbitrary or irrational.