Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Smt. Priya Agrawal on 13 March, 2026
Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Parth Prateem Sahu
1
ROHIT
2026:CGHC:11987-DB
KUMAR
CHANDRA NAFR
Digitally
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
signed by
ROHIT KUMAR
CHANDRA
WA No. 372 of 2022
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Food,
Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Block 2, Third Floor, Indravati
Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - The Registrar Chhattisgarh State Consumer Commission, New Bus
Stand, Pandari, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
... Appellants
versus
1 - Smt. Priya Agrawal W/o Shri Prashant Kumar Agrawal Aged About 54
Years R/o 10/4, Kankali Hospital Chowk, Tatyapara, Raipur, District
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Sangram Singh S/o Late Shri Baldau Singh Aged About 50 Years R/o
Qtr. No. 58, 59, Sector- 3, Gitanjali Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
3 - Pramod Kumar Verma S/o Late Shri Tilak Ram Verma Aged About 48
Years R/o Village Mendra, Post Saida, Tehsil And Police Station Sakri,
District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
For State/Appellants : Mr. Praveen Das, Addl. Advocate General For Respondent No.1 : None appears For Respondent No.2 : None appears For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Anup Majumdar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment on Board 2 Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 13.03.2026
1. Heard Mr. Praveen Das, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State/appellants. Also heard Mr. Anup Majumdar, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.3.
2. From perusal of the record, it transpires that notice has been served upon respondent No.2 and though fresh issued to respondent No.1 has already been served upon her on 20.07.2024, but none had appeared on their behalf to contest this appeal.
3. I.A. No. 02 of 2022 is an application for condonation of delay of 73 days in filing the instant appeal.
4. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay in filing the instant appeal is hereby condoned.
5. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the appeal is heard finally.
6. By way of present writ appeal under Section 2 of Sub-Section (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench Act, 2006, the State/appellants, who were respondents in the writ petition have challenged the order dated 01.02.2022 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No.42 of 2022 (Smt. Priya Agrawal & Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Another) , by which the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners/ respondents herein has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge.
3
7. Brief facts, necessary for disposal of this appeal, are that the writ petitioners / respondents herein have preferred a writ petition before this Court being WPS No. 42 of 2022 calling in question legality, validity and correctness of the advertisement issued by respondent No.1 inviting applications for the vacant posts of President, District Commission for the districts of Raigarh, Surguja (Ambikapur), Koriya (Baikunthpur), Kabirdham (Kawardha), Dhamtari and Rajnandgaon, total six posts, and selection process conducted therein for the said posts, principally on the ground that rejection of their candidature for the said posts holding them to be over-aged, is contrary to Rule 4 of the Consumer Protection (Qualification for appointment, method of recruitment, procedure of appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of the President and members of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020 (for short, 'the Rules of 2020') and is liable to be quashed, and also on the ground that the Chhattisgarh Lok Seva (Anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusuchit Jan Jatiyon Aur Anya Pichhade Vargon Ke Liye Arakshan) Adhiniyam, 1994 (for short, 'the Act of 1994') has not been followed and privilege of reservation has not been extended to petitioner No.3 being OBC candidate, therefore, it is liable to be quashed. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following backdrop :-
(a) It is the case of petitioner No.1 that she is basically an Advocate and had 12 years experience as Advocate and she was earlier posted as Member of Raipur District Commission and 4 having experience of 8 years as Member of the Raipur District Commission and presently also working as Member of District Commission, Raipur and applied for the post of President of District Commission, Dhamtari. It is the case of petitioner No.2 that he is having experience of 20 years as an Advocate and is presently working as Member of Raipur District Commission and he has applied for the post of President, District Commission, Rajnandgaon. It is the case of petitioner No.3 that he is an Advocate of 12 years experience and earlier, he held the post of Member of District Commission from 11-08-2010 to 11-08-2015 and from 01-02-2016 to 8-06-2020 and presently, he is posted as Member of State Commission since 10-06-2020, and being an OBC candidate, he is also entitled for the privilege of reservation and the benefit of age relaxation on appointment for the post of President, District Commission and applied for the post of President, District Commission, Raigarh.
(b) It is the further case of the petitioners that interview has been fixed for 08-01-2022, but they have not been called for interview and even they have not been informed about the rejection of their applications which is ex facie illegal and bad in law as they are eligible and qualified to be District Judge by virtue of Rule 4(1) of the Rules of 2020 read with Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India and further more, petitioner No.3 is entitled for the benefit of reservation and age relaxation by virtue of the Act of 1994, as such, the entire recruitment process is liable to be quashed. 5
8. Return has been filed by the respondents stating inter alia that the State Government is required to establish a District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to be known as the District Commission in each district under Section 28(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short 'the Act of 2019') which has to be fulfilled in accordance with the rules framed by the Central Government under Section 29 of the Act of 2019 and for which rules have been framed by the Central Government which are the Rules of 2020 in which it has clearly been provided in Rule 4(1) that a person shall not be qualified for appointment as President, unless he is, or has been, or is qualified to be a District Judge. Appointment of District Judge has been provided under Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India which clearly provides that a person not already in the service of the Union or of the State shall only be eligible to be appointed a district judge if he has seven years practice as an advocate or a pleader.
9. It has further been pleaded that in furtherance of the prescription provided under Article 233 of the Constitution of India, the State Government has framed the Chhattisgarh Higher Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2006 (for short, 'the Rules of 2006') which provide for qualification for appointment as District Judge by way of direct recruitment. Rule 7 of the Rules of 2006 provides for qualification for direct recruitment under clause (c) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 which provides that no person shall be eligible for appointment by direct recruitment unless, he or 6 she (a) is a citizen of India; (b) has attained the age of 35 years and has not attained the age of 45 years on the first day of January in the year in which applications for appointment are invited, and it provides age relaxation of 3 years for the candidates belonging to SC, ST and OBC; (c) has for at least seven years been an advocate on the first day of January of the year in which applications for appointment are invited.
10. It has further been pleaded in paragraph 12 of the return that by virtue of Rule 7 of the Rules of 2006, upper age limit for the candidates under Rule 4(1) of the Rules of 2020 {qualified to be District Judge} 45 years of age has been prescribed. In paragraph 13 of the return, it has categorically been stated that petitioner No.1 had already completed more than 53 years of age, petitioner No.2 had completed more than 50 years of age and petitioner No.3 had completed more than 47 years of age, therefore, all the petitioners were beyond the eligible age limit of 45 years and were therefore absolutely ineligible and as such, their candidature has rightly been rejected for the reason that they were age barred.
11. It has further been pleaded by the respondents that since a single post of President of the District Commission in each of the above- stated districts is available, therefore, no rule of reservation can be applied for appointment to the said post in terms of the Act of 1994 and as such, since appointment to the post of President of the District Commission is to be made in each district, which is only singular in number, the Act of 1994 providing reservation is not 7 applicable. Even otherwise, the President appointed in one District Commission is not transferable to another District Commission and the President, who is appointed in a District Commission is appointed only for the said District Commission and as such, the post is not interchangeable as amongst the Presidents who are appointed in various District Commissions. It has also been brought on record the judgments of the Supreme Court in which it has been held that as single post cadre shall never attract the rules of reservation, since otherwise it would amount to a 100% reservation to the single post to the exclusion of other general members of the public. It has finally been pleaded that the petitioners are over-aged having crossed the age of 45 years on the date of application on the basis of record as per the Rule 7 of the Rules of 2006 and single post of President of the District Commission is not covered by the rule of reservation, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
12. Rejoinder has been filed by petitioner No.1 separately stating inter alia that the advertisement Annexure P-1 issued for recruitment on the post of President, District Commission is contrary to sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of the Rules of 2020. It has further been pleaded that since petitioner No.1 has 12 years experience as an Advocate, she is qualified to be District Judge under Rule 4(1) of the Rules of 2020 and therefore in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court, since she is qualified to be a District Judge in terms of Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India, she is well qualified for 8 the post of President, District Commission and her candidature has wrongly and illegally been rejected, as such, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and the selection procedure deserves to be quashed.
13. Rejoinder has also been filed on behalf of petitioner No.3 stating inter alia that by virtue of Section 32 of the Act of 2019 if, at any time, there is a vacancy in the office of the President or member of a District Commission, the State Government may, by notification, direct any other District Commission specified in that notification to exercise the jurisdiction in respect of that district also or the President or a member of any other District Commission specified in that notification to exercise the powers and discharge the functions of the President or member of that District Commission also. It has also been submitted that this would show that the post is not a single post cadre and is transferable. Condition No.8 of the advertisement also provides that candidates shall be considered for any district other than the district for which they have applied for. Therefore, the advertisement is liable to be quashed. It has also been pleaded that petitioner No.3 fulfills the requisite qualification for appointment to the post of President, District Commission and Rule 7 of the Rules of 2006 provides for age relaxation and Rule 6 provides for reservation. As such, non- compliance with the reservation roster in respect of age relaxation as provided in the rules of 2006 is illegal and the advertisement Annexure P-1 is liable to be quashed.
9
14. The learned Single Judge after hearing learned counsel for the parties and on the basis of materials available on record framed certain questions for consideration, which as are follows :
"1. Whether the rule of reservation as provided in the Act of 1994 would apply to appointment on the post of President of the District Commission under Section 28 of the Act of 2019 read with the Rules of 2020 ?
2.1) Whether the respondents are justified in declaring the petitioners as ineligible for the post of President, District Commission holding them as over- aged?
2.2) Whether the respondents are justified in holding the petitioners as ineligible on the ground that they have not completed seven years of practice as an advocate or a pleader, as required under clause (2) of Article 233 of the Constitution of India read with Rule 4(2) of the Rules of 2020 on 15-7-2021 on the date of advertisement?"
15. The learned Single Judge having considered the facts on record dismissed the writ petition vide impugned order dated 01.02.2022 and answered question Nos. 1 & 2.2 against the writ petitioners / respondents herein and held that the rejection of the petitioners' candidature was appropriate, however, while considering question No.2.1 held that the petitioners were not overaged as prescription of Upper Age Limit as 45 was incorrect. It is against the said finding and observation recorded by the learned Single Judge, the State / appellants have preferred the instant writ appeal for consideration before this Court.
10
16. Mr. Praveen Das, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State appellants vehemently argued that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that under Rule 4(1) of the Consumer Protection (Qualification for appointment, method of recruitment, procedure of appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of the President and members of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020, a person is eligible to be appointed as President of the District Commission only if he is qualified to be appointed as a District Judge. The qualification for appointment as a District Judge in the State of Chhattisgarh is governed by the Chhattisgarh Higher Judicial Services (Recruitment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 2006. Rule 7 of the said Rules prescribes that a candidate must have attained the age of 35 years and must not have attained the age of 45 years to be eligible for such appointment. The prescription of the maximum age limit under the Rules, 2006 forms an integral part of the eligibility criteria and, therefore, while determining whether a person is qualified to be appointed as a District Judge, the said age requirement is necessarily applicable. Further, the State Government, by order dated 01.10.2021 issued in the name of the Hon'ble Governor, specifically prescribed that a candidate would be eligible to be appointed as President of the District Commission only if he had completed 35 years of age and had not completed 45 years of age on the date of advertisement. The said order was never challenged by the petitioners before the Hon'ble Single Judge.
11
17. It is further submitted that the petitioners participated in the selection process pursuant to the advertisement issued under the said order dated 01.10.2021 and only after rejection of their candidature approached the Hon'ble Court by filing the writ petition. In the absence of any challenge to the legality and validity of the said order, the eligibility conditions prescribed therein could not have been modified by the learned Single Judge. The findings recorded with regard to Question No. 2.1 are contrary to the statutory scheme under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the Rules, 2020, and the Rules, 2006. The interpretation adopted by the learned Single Judge effectively removes the upper age limit for candidates applying from amongst practicing advocates or pleaders and virtually makes every practicing advocate with seven years of experience and above the age of 35 years eligible for appointment as President of the District Commission. Such an interpretation defeats the statutory framework and disregards the binding Government order dated 01.10.2021, thereby rendering the impugned findings legally unsustainable.
18. On the other hand, Mr. Anup Majumdar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 opposed the aforesaid submission.
19. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and have carefully gone through the pleadings and material available on record as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.
20. The core issue which arises for consideration in the present writ 12 appeal is with regard to the correctness of the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while answering Question No. 2.1, whereby it has been held that the petitioners could not have been declared ineligible for the post of President of the District Commission on the ground that they had crossed the upper age limit of 45 years.
21. On a careful consideration of the statutory framework governing the field, it is evident that the appointment to the post of President of the District Commission is governed by the provisions contained in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and the Consumer Protection (Qualification for appointment, method of recruitment, procedure of appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of the President and members of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020. Rule 4(1) of the Rules of 2020 specifically provides that a person shall not be qualified for appointment as President of the District Commission unless he is, or has been, or is qualified to be a District Judge. The expression "qualified to be a District Judge" is to be understood in the context of Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India, which stipulates that a person not already in the service of the Union or of the State shall be eligible to be appointed as a District Judge if he has been for not less than seven years an Advocate or a Pleader and is recommended by the High Court for appointment.
22. It is significant to note that neither the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 nor the Rules of 2020 prescribe any upper 13 age limit for determining eligibility for appointment to the post of President of the District Commission. The requirement contained in Rule 4(1) of the Rules of 2020 merely incorporates the eligibility relating to qualification to be a District Judge. In the considered opinion of this Court, the qualification contemplated under Article 233(2) of the Constitution primarily relates to the professional eligibility of a candidate, namely, the requirement of at least seven years' practice as an Advocate or Pleader and the condition that the candidate should not already be in service of the Union or the State. The Rules of 2020 do not expressly adopt or incorporate the age criteria contained in the Chhattisgarh Higher Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2006 for the purpose of determining eligibility for the post of President of the District Commission.
23. The contention raised on behalf of the State/appellants that the age restriction prescribed under Rule 7 of the Rules of 2006 must automatically be read into Rule 4(1) of the Rules of 2020 cannot be accepted. The Rules of 2006 govern the process of recruitment to the Chhattisgarh Higher Judicial Service for appointment as District Judges by direct recruitment and operate in an entirely different statutory field. The Rules of 2020, on the other hand, have been framed by the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and provide an independent framework governing appointment to the Consumer Commissions. In absence of any specific provision in 14 the Rules of 2020 adopting the age criteria contained in the Rules of 2006, the same cannot be imported by implication.
24. Similarly, the order dated 01.10.2021 issued by the State Government prescribing the upper age limit of 45 years cannot override or supplement the statutory scheme contained in the Rules of 2020. It is a settled principle of law that executive instructions cannot run contrary to statutory rules. Therefore, the prescription of the upper age limit of 45 years through the said order cannot be treated as a valid basis to declare the petitioners ineligible, particularly when the governing statutory rules do not contemplate such restriction.
25. The learned Single Judge, after examining the statutory provisions in their proper perspective, has rightly held that the rejection of the candidature of the petitioners on the ground that they had crossed the age of 45 years was not justified. We find ourselves in agreement with the reasoning adopted by the learned Single Judge while answering Question No. 2.1 and do not find any legal infirmity in the view so taken.
26. In light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge with regard to the issue of upper age limit does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006. The 15 arguments advanced on behalf of the State/appellants do not persuade this Court to take a different view in the matter.
27. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Chandra