JASBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana issued a public notice dated 22.12.2011 inviting applications for filling up five posts of Presidents in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Foras in the State of Haryana (subsequently increased to ten posts in the light of notice dated 11.2.2013). Amongst the candidates who could apply and were eligible to be considered for the post in question were Advocates having not less than ten years standing at the bar and not less than 35 years of age as on 31 st January, 2012 (as per initial public notice dated 22.12.2011 and as on 28.2.2013 in terms of subsequent notice dated 11.2.2013).

(2.) The present petition has been filed impugning the decision of the Selection Committee whereby only such candidates from amongst the Advocates are being called for the interview whose income from profession as reflected in the income tax returns was Rs. 3 lacs or more. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by such decision of the Selection Committee in holding him ineligible and thereby not being called for the interview for the post of President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Fora.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, who has been heard at length, would submit that such a decision amounts to challenging the selection criteria after the process of selection stood already initiated in the light of issuance of public notices dated 22.12.2011 and 11.2.2013. It has been argued that insofar as the category of Advocates is concerned, the only stipulation in the notice was for such Advocates having not less than ten years standing at the bar and not being less than 35 years of age as on a stipulated date. Accordingly, it has been argued that determination of eligibility in the light of an income criteria i.e. reflection of professional income in excess of Rs. 3 lacs would be alien to the conditions stipulated in the advertisement and the same would not be permissible in law. In support of such contention, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Himani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi, 2008 AIR(SC) 2103