SATISH KUMAR SANGWAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order, I propose to decide Civil Writ Petition Nos.1505 of 2014 (Satish Kumar Sangwan Versus State of Haryana and others) and 3346 of 2014 (Virender Kumar Versus State of Haryana and others), which have been preferred by two Advocates, who are aspirants for appointment to the posts of Presidents District Consumer Disputes Redressal Foras advertised on 20.01.2014 by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana. Facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petition No.1505 of 2014, where the pleadings are complete.

(2.) Petitioner was enrolled as an Advocate with the Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana High Court vide enrolment No.P/1703/2000 and is practicing Advocate in the District Courts, Yamunanagar at Jagadhri. On 20.01.2014, the State District Redressal Commission, Haryana-respondent No.2 (for short "Commission") advertised seven posts of President in District Consumer Disputes Redressal Fora (for short "District Fora") in the State of Haryana. Petitioner fulfills the eligibility conditions as prescribed under Section 10(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "1986 Act") for appointment to the post of President of the Redressal Fora. He is aggrieved of Clause 9 of the advertisement, according to which the Selection Committee constituted under Section 10(1-A) of the 1986 Act decided that only those candidates shall be considered for appointment, who have filed their income tax returns showing their professional income not less than '5.00 lacs per annum and are income tax payees for at least three years, failing which their applications would be rejected outrightly.

(3.) This condition, as has been imposed by the Selection Committee, is assailed by the petitioner on the ground that it did not have the jurisdiction to prescribe the income criteria as eligibility conditions as provisions as provided under the Act are silent on prescribing minimum income as qualification for the post of the President. The Haryana Consumer Protection Rules, 2004 (for short "2004 Rules") also do not prescribe for the income criteria nor does it authorise the Selection Committee to prescribe such a criteria of its own. Had the income criteria been prescribed by the Selection Committee for the purpose of shortlisting of the candidates, there could probably have been no grouse. However, the same cannot be made the eligibility condition, which would at the very outset make ineligible the candidates, who fulfill the eligibility conditions as laid down in the 1986 Act as also the 2004 Rules.