Candidates Aged 45 Yrs Or Above Eligible To Head District Consumer Forum If Other Qualifications Are Met: Chhattisgarh High Court Clarifies

While dealing with a case regarding non-appointment of petitioners at the post of President, District Commission citing their age as an ineligibility criterion among others, Justice Sanjay K Agarwal has held the petitioners to be fully eligible for appointment on the position of President, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, qua their age and held the action of the state to declare them ineligible on that basis to be arbitrary.

However, the Court clarified that the petitioners were only barred because they were not serving as advocates at the time of filing their application, which was an essential criterion for the post of President, District Commission, as per Rule 4(1) of the Rules of 2020 read in conjunction with A.233(2) of the Constitution of India.

Background

Three petitioners had invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution stating that when applications for the posts of President, District Commission were invited and the selection process was conducted, the three petitioners were rejected citing them over-aged for holding the posts and thus the petitioners have requested that the advertisement itself must be quashed. A claim was also made that petitioner no. 3 was an OBC candidate and he was not given the privilege of reservation, in violation of Chhattisgarh Lok Seva Adhiniyam 1994.

The case of petitioner no. 1 (aged 53 years) was that although she had 12 years of experience as an advocate and had served for 8 years as a member of the Raipur District Commission and was, at the time of filing the petition, still working as a member of the District Commission, her application was rejected.

The case of petitioner no. 2 (aged 50 years) was that he had 20 years of experience as an advocate and was a Member of the Raipur District Commission at the time of filing his application and had still been rejected.

The case of petitioner no. 3 (aged 47 years) was that not only did he have 12 years of experience as an advocate, he had also held the post of Member, Raipur District Commission and was also entitled to the privilege of reservation and age relaxation being an OBC candidate.

The petitioners further stated that they were not called for interview and this lack of information about rejection of their applications was ex facie illegal and bad in law as they were eligible and qualified to be a district judge, as according to the criteria for President, District Commission candidature, a person must have been qualified to be a district judge to be appointed as President, District Commission.

Respondents (State government) submitted that Rule 7 of Chhattisgarh Higher Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2006 which provides for qualification of direct recruitment states that a person shall not be eligible for appointment by direct recruitment unless

• he is a citizen of India,
• has attained 35 years of age but has not attained the age of 45 years on the 1^st January in the year in which applications for appointment are invited and age relaxation of 3 years to be given to candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC
• and has for at least seven years been an advocate on 1^st January when applications for appointment are invited.

And since the petitioners were much more than 45 years of age, their candidature was rightly rejected.

Counsel for respondents also submitted that the rule of reservation is not applicable when there is a single post since it would "amount to a 100% reservation to the single post to the exclusion of other general members of the public."

Questions Involved

The High Court had to adjudicate on three questions:

• whether the rule of the reservation will apply to the single post of the President, District Commission?
• Whether the respondents are justified in declaring petitioners to be ineligible for the above-mentioned post because they are overage?
• Whether the respondents are justified in holding petitioners ineligible on the ground that they have not completed seven years of practice as an advocate/pleader as per A.233(2) of the Constitution read with Rule 4(2) of the Rules of 2020?

Findings

Regarding the first question, the Court referred to Section 28 (Establishment of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 read in consonance with Section 2(b) of the Act of 1994. It also referred to Supreme Court judgments in Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research case and State of UP and others v. M.C. Chattopadhyaya and others where it was clearly stated that "there cannot be a reservation for an isolated post." And that "plurality of posts is necessary for applying the rule of reservation".

Further referring to the apex court judgment in the R.R. Inamdar Case which had held that the "rule of the reservation shall not apply to the single isolated post as there is no scope of inter-changeability of posts in the different disciplines", the High Court stated that merely because the post of President of District Commission has an attribute of interchangeability and transferability, it cannot be concluded that the post of President, District Commission is transferable to other districts and thus, considering it is a single, isolated post, the rule of the reservation shall not be applicable here as that would amount to "100% reservation to the exclusion of general members of public, which is impermissible in law."

On the question pertaining to petitioners being overaged, the High Court conducted a thorough perusal of Rule 4 of Rules of 2020 (Qualifications for appointment of President and member of District Commission), A.233(2) of the Constitution of India and Rule 7(i)(b) of the Rules of 2006 and referred to the apex court's judgment of Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi, the High Court stated that

"Therefore, the maximum age limit prescribed in Rule 7(i)(b) of the Rules of 2006 applicable for appointment on the post of District Judge (direct recruitment) cannot be imported for appointment on the post of President, District Commission, as it is not a qualification prescribed for appointment on the post of President, District Commission, it is a provision for appointment of District Judge."

Thus, the High Court held that if the position of President, District Commission could be held by a retired District Judge of 60 years or a sitting District judge of 55 years, it could very well be held by an Advocate of that age. Thus, the High Court found that the rejection of the petitioner's candidature citing their overage was arbitrary, illegal and was declared without any authority of law.

However, the Court then clarified that on petitioner's admission, they were not practicing as advocates when they applied, rather they were holding the posts of Member of State Commission and they had not even completed seven years continuously as advocates as per the interpretation of Article 233(2) of the Constitution in the Dheeraj Mor case (which cited that the advocates must be in practice while making their application).

Thus, the Court held that on this ground, the respondent State Government was perfectly justified in declaring them ineligible as per Rule 4(1) of the Rules of 2020 read in consonance with A.233(2) of the Constitution.

The Court said that although the petitioners' age was not a bar in holding them eligible for the post of President, District Commission, since they were not practicing advocates at the time of filing their application, the State government was right in rejecting their candidature and they were not entitled to any relief.

The petition was accordingly dismissed and parties were directed to bear their own costs.

Related Read: A member of District Consumer Forum has no vested right for re-appointment: Chhattisgarh HC

Case: Smt. Priya Agrawal and Ors. Versus State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Chh) 11

Case No: Writ Petition (S) No. 42 of 2022

Coram: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

Counsel for petitioners: Mr. T.K. Jha, advocate (for petitioner no. 1) and Mr. S.P. Kale (for petitioner no. 2 and 3)

Counsel for Respondents/State: Mr. Amrito Das, Additional Advocate General