Bombay High Court
Avinash S/O Vinayak Prabhune vs U.O.I., Thr. Secy., Ministry Of Cons. ... on 29 April, 2025
Author: Avinash G. Gharote
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
2025:BHC-NAG:4462-DB
WP-7059.23+1-J.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.7059/2023
PETITIONERS : 1. Bhaskar Buphkaran Pushpa Yogi, Age 48
years, Occu.: Advocate, C/o. Arun
Gaharwar, Near Madhur Courier, Civil
Line, Hanuman Chowk, Gondia-441601.
Mobile No.8097278300.
2. Anand Bhalchandra Joshi, Age-44 years,
Occu.: Advocate, R/o. Dutta Nagar,
Lakhala, Washim.
Mobile NO.9850810045.
Email ID [email protected]
3. Smt.Vrushali Gaurav Jagirdar, Age-46
years, Occupation : Advocate, R/o. Flat
No.101, Ghruhashree Apartment,
Opp.Ameya Hospital, Dharampeth, Khare
Town, Nagpur-440010.
Mobile No.8999441087
Email ID [email protected]
4. Smt.Shubhangi Nilkanthrao Konde, Age 47
years, Occu.: Advocate, C/o Purshottam
Kirakte, Shankuntal Colony, Tower Line,
Amravati Mah.444604.
Email ID [email protected]
5. Sarita Baliram Raipure, Age 51 years,
Occu.: Advocate, R/o Behind Matoshree
School, Wankhede Wadi, Raut Layout,
Tukum Chandrapur, Maharashtra-442402.
Email: [email protected]
6. Sarfraj Ibrahim Mujawar, Age-42 years,
Occu.: Service Advocate and Member
District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Washim-Maharashtra
Mobile NO.9890065955.
Email: [email protected]
WP-7059.23+1-J.odt
2
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS: 1. Union of India, Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Consumer Affairs Food and
Public Distribution, Department of
Consumer Affairs, Krushi Bhavan, New
Delhi-110001.
2. State of Maharashtra, Through its
Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies and
Consumer Affairs, Department/Ministry,
Room No:-219, Second Floor, Mantralaya,
Mumbai-400032-Email:-
[email protected]
3. The Selection Committee Constituted U/R
6{1} of CP Rules 2020 through its
Convenor, Secretary, Food and Civil
Supplies and Consumer Affairs
Department/Ministry, Room No:-219,
Second Floor, Mantralaya, Mumbai-
400032-Email:- [email protected]
4. The Institute of Banking Personnel
Selection through its Chairman &
Managing Director, I.B.P.S. House, 90
Ft.D.P. Road, Near Thakur Polytechnic
Office, Western Express Highway,
Kandiwali (E), Mumbai-400101.
Respondent Nos.5 5. Kailas Kisanrao Chafale, President, District
to 11 are deleted as Commission, Gondia (At Sr.No.37 in GR
per order dated dt.05/10/2023)
11/11/2024 6. Prakash Nivruti Chaudhari, President,
District Commission, Washim (At Sr.No.42
in GR dt.05/10/2023)
7. Jayashree Budhprakash Gopnarayan,
Member, District Commission, Bhandara
(At Sr.No.49 in GR dt.05/10/2023).
8. Amruta Padmakar Vaidya, Member, District
Commission, Amravati (At Sr.No.59 in GR
WP-7059.23+1-J.odt
3
dt.05/10/2023).
9. Charu Vinod Dongre, Member, District
Commission, Gondia (At Sr.No.66 in GR
dt.05/10/2023).
10. Nagesh Bhagwanrao Ubale, Member,
District Commission, Washim (At Sr.No.73
in GR dt.05/10/2023).
11. Sandhya Shripati Kasbe, R/o Sagar Nivas,
Ghodag Road, Tq. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded,
Maharashtra.
(Who has been appointed as Member in
District Consumer Commission in place of
the post of the Petitioner No.6 from
11.02.2024)
Mr. T.D. Mandlekar, Advocate for Petitioners.
Mr. N.S. Deshpande, DSGI for Respondent No.1
Mr. N.R. Patil, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 and 3
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.7212/2023
PETITIONER : Avinash S/o Vinayak Prabhune,
Age 60 years, Occ. Ex. Member,
Additional District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission,
R/o Plot No. 113, Gawande Layout,
Ranapratap Nagar, Nagpur,
Maharashtra - 440022
[email protected]
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS: 1. Union of India through it's Secretary,
Ministry of Consumer Affairs Food and
Public Distribution, Department of
Consumer Affairs, Krushi Bhavan,
New Delhi 110001
WP-7059.23+1-J.odt
4
2. State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary, Food and Civil
Supplies and Consumer Affairs
Department,
Room No. 219, Mantralaya (Extension),
Mumbai - 400032,
Email ID [email protected]
3. The Selection Committee, through its
Convener, Secretary, Food and Civil
Supplies and Consumer Affairs
Department, Room No. 219, Mantralaya
(Extension), Mumbai 400032
Email ID [email protected]
4. Shri Ravindra Devaji Sontakke
Age Adult, Occupation Service,
Through Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies
and Consumer Affairs Department,
Room No. 219, Mantralaya (Extension),
Mumbai - 4400032,
Email ID - [email protected]
Mr. Rohan Malviya, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. N.S. Deshpande, DSGI for Respondent No.1
Mr. N.R. Patil, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 and 3
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE &
ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
DATE 22.04.2025
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)
1. Heard.
WP-7059.23+1-J.odt
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard
finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
3. On 11.11.2024, we have recorded the following position:
"3.1. Mr. Mandlekar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, upon
instructions of the Petitioners does not press the Petition vis-a-vis prayer
clauses 3 to 10. The statement is accepted as the statement to the Court.
The learned counsel for the Petitioner, is therefor directed to delete the
prayer clauses 3 to 10 from the Petition forthwith. The Petition is now
restricted to the relief as claimed in the prayer clause 1 and 2.
3.2. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner in view of the above
seeks to delete the Respondent Nos. 6 to 11 from the array of
Respondents. Mr. Dhawas, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent
Nos. 6, 9 and 11, has no objection. In view of the statement, by the
learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Respondent Nos. 6 to 11 be
deleted from the array of Respondents. The same be done forthwith.
3.3. In Writ Petition No. 3680/23 and connected matters decided on
20/10/2023, a challenge to Rule 6(1) and 10(2) of the Consumer
Protection Rules, 2020 was accepted by the learned Division Bench of
this Court. This is, what has been stated in this regard (Pg.373) (para
31), as under:-
"(A) Rule 6(1) of the Rules of 2020 is struck down on the
ground that the same results in diluting the involvement of
the judiciary in the process of appointment of the President
and members of the State Commission and the District
Commission. The said Rule is against the spirit of the decision
of the Constitution Bench in Rojer Mathew (supra).
(B) Since Rule 6(1) of the Rules of 2020 has been struck
down the notifications dated 10.04.2023 and 13.06.2023
would not survive.
(C) Rule 10(2) of the Rules of 2020 to the extent it prescribes
the tenure of the members of the State Commission and the
WP-7059.23+1-J.odt
President and members of the District Commission to be four
years is struck down as not being in consonance with the
spirit of the law laid down in the Madras Bar Association III
(supra).
(D) Since re-appointment of members of the State
Commission and the President as well as members of the
District Commission under Rule 10(2) of the Rules of 2020 is
on the basis of recommendation to be made by the Selection
Committee and as Rule 6(9) of the Rules of 2020 has been
struck down in Vijaykumar Bhima Dighe (supra), till the time
Rule 6(9) of the Rules of 2020 is suitably amended the
Selection Committee can consider following the procedure
for the appointment of members of the State Commission and
the President as well as members of the District Commission
by taking into consideration the procedure that was
prevailing vide Rule 8(18) of the Rules of 2019.
(E) The notice issued by the Department of Food, Civil
Supplies and Consumer Affairs alongwith the advertisement
dated 23.05.2023 in relation to Paper-II is held to be without
jurisdiction. Consequently, it would be necessary for the
Department to re-conduct the test in Paper-II by following the
directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Article
142 of the Constitution of India in The Secretary, Ministry of
Consumer Affairs (supra).
(F) In view of the decision in Suhas Milind Untwale Versus
The State of Maharashtra [Writ Petition No. 3756 of 2023]
decided today, it is held that the notice annexed to the
advertisement dated 23.05.2023 that pertains to the
appointment on the post of Member, State Commission
would be applicable only to a candidate seeking appointment
in terms of Rule 3(2)(b) and not a candidate seeking
appointment in terms of Rule 3(2)(a) of the Rules of 2020"
3.4. The above judgment has been challenged in the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 25612/2023
wherein by an order dated 27/06/2024, the Hon'ble Apex Court has
clarified that in case of the President/Members whose appointments were
terminated and who have filed Writ Petitions before the High Court, it
will be open for the High Court to decide their Petitions in accordance
with law.
WP-7059.23+1-J.odt
3.5. We are here concerned with the observation of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the aforesaid order, which permits the High Court to decide the
petition in accordance with law in the case of President/Members whose
appointments were terminated and who have filed the Writ Petition in
the High Court.
3.6. The present petition is by the President/Members of the District
Commission whose appointments were terminated and therefore, in
terms of the above observation by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it would be
permissible for this Court to consider the challenge raised by them in the
present petition.
3.7. The petition questions the order dated 06.10.2023 (page 230),
by which the claim of the petitioners for being considered for
reappointment has been turned down and they have been directed to be
treated at par with fresh appointees, resulting in the same procedure to
be adopted and followed regarding fresh appointment, which according
to the petitioners is not applicable to them, they having already
undergone the same, at the time of their initial appointment.
3.8. The petitioner No.1 was appointed as President of District
Consumer Forum, Gondia by order dated 08.5.2018 (page 239), which
appointment was for a period of five years. The petitioner No.2 was
appointed as Member of District Consumer Forum, Washim by order
dated 08.05.2018 (page 245), which appointment was for a period of
five years, he was thereafter appointed as the President of the District
Consumer Forum, Washim by order dated 23.8.2018 (page 245). The
petitioner Nos. 3 to 5 were appointed as Members of the District
Consumer Forum, Bhandara, Amravati and Gondia respectively by the
order dated 08.5.2018 (page 235). The petitioner No.6 was appointed as
the Member of the District Consumer Forum, Bombay (Additional) by the
order dated 29.1.2019 (page 249).
3.9. Before the tenure of these petitioners was to expire, the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 came to be repealed by the Consumer
Protection Act, 2019, which came into force w.e.f. 20.07.2020. In view of
the provisions of Section 31 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 the
WP-7059.23+1-J.odt
appointment of the petitioners were saved and continued for the tenure
for which they came to be appointed.
3.10. As the tenure of appointments of the petitioners was nearing
completion, they applied for reappointment to the respective posts
which they were holding at that point of time. The applications are at
page Nos. 313, 316 and 317. That this was so, is also indicated from the
impugned order dated 06.10.2023 [The list which annexed with
indicates the names of the petitioners at Sr. No. 7, 8, 16, 20, 21 and 23 -
Sr. No. 18 in WP No. 7212/2023 (Page 232)].
3.11. By the impugned order dated 06.10.2023, (page 230), the
request of the petitioner for reappointment came to be rejected on the
ground that the selection committee had not recommended their
reappointment.
3.12. Mr. Mandlekar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits, that
the Selection Committee, while rejecting the claim for reappointment of
the petitioners has treated the petitioners on par with fresh appointees
which could not have been done by the selection committee in view of
the mandate of Rule 34 of the Whole Time Presidents and Members of
the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Group-A, under the Food, Civil
Supplies and Consumer Protection Department of the Government
(Recruitment) Rules, 2011, which came to be notified by the State in the
official gazette on 03.1.2012, which required that in case of
reappointment, since the candidates had already undergone the selection
process what was required to be considered by the Selection Committee
for recommending their names was the confidential reports, the disposal
of cases, the performance during the time of first appointment, a general
reputation of the candidates and the complaints, if any, pending against
the candidates. He further submits, that this position is further reiterated
by provisions of Rule 8(18) of the Consumer Protection (Appointment,
Salary, Allowance and Conditions of Service of Presidents and Members
of State Commission and District Commission) Rules 2019. He, therefore,
submits, that a totally different procedure is mandated by these rules for
the appointment and reappointment and whereas the appointment
would be governed by Rules 7 to 11 of the Rules of 2012 and Rules 5 to 8
(13) of the Rules of 2019, the procedure for reappointment would be
WP-7059.23+1-J.odt
governed by Rule 34 of the Rules 2012 and Rule 8(18) of the Rules of
2019. He, therefore, submits, that coming into force of the Consumer
Protection Act, 2019 would not have an adverse impact upon the
entitlement of the petitioners to claim reappointment to the posts to
which they were appointed before coming into force 2019 Act by
following the procedure as provided in Rule 8 (18) of the 2019 Rules, on
account of which, they would not be liable to be treated at par with the
persons applying for appointment for the first time, they having already
undergone selection process during their earlier appointments. It is also
his contention, that the question of reappointment of the petitioners is
governed by the statutory provisions and rules framed thereunder and
therefore in the light of Rule 14 of Consumer Protection (Salary,
Allowance and Conditions of Service of Presidents and Members of the
State Commission and District Commission) Model Rules, 2020 which
mandates that the terms and conditions of the service of the President
and Members of the District Commission and State Commission shall not
be varied to their disadvantage during their tenure of office, the
petitioners could not be treated on par with the persons applying for the
first time for such post and therefore made to undergo the selection
process afresh. He also relies upon Section 107(2) and (3) of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to contend that the right of petitioners to
claim reappointment has been saved.
3.13. He, therefore, contends, that since rule 10 of the Consumer
Protection (Qualification for Appointment, Method of Recruitment,
Procedure of Appointment, Term of Office, Resignation and Removal of
the President and the Members of the State Commission and District
Commission) Rules 2020, also provide for reappointment of the existing
members for a further period on the basis of the recommendation of the
Selection Committee which has been amended by the Notification dated
30.09.2022 by replacing it with Rules 10(1) and (2) which reiterates the
same position, the entitlement of the petitioners to be considered for the
reappointment is no longer in question. The bone of contention
according to him is the procedure to be adopted and the contention of
the respondents that the selection committee while recommending the
name of the candidate for reappointment has absolute powers according
to him is clearly unwarranted as in absence of any such indication in Rule
WP-7059.23+1-J.odt
10 of the Rules 2020, the procedure as adopted under Rule 34 of the
Rules 2012 and Rule 8(18) of Rules 2019 will have to be followed.
3.14. He further relies upon Mukund Bhagwan Saste Vs State of
Maharashtra and others in Writ Petition No. 4974/2018 decided on
18.2.2019 (page 290) to contend, that the position as extant as based on
Rule 34 of the Rules of 2012 that the candidate to seek reappointment do
not have to again appear for the written examination and the selection
process for a fresh candidate has been upheld by the learned Division
Bench of this Court.
3.15. He further relies upon the interim order dated 03.05.2023 in
Writ Petition No. 2496/2023 (Avinash Vinayak Prabhune and Others Vs.
Union of India) (page 318) in which by way of an interim order it was
directed that till the selection committee makes its recommendations, the
petitioners would be entitled to continue to hold their respective posts as
a stop gap and adhoc arrangement. This was so, as the tenure of the
petitioners in that petition to which the present petitioners, except
petitioner Nos.2 and 6, were also parties, stood expired.
3.16. He further placed his reliance upon the judgment in WP No.
2496/2023 with connected petition dated 20.10.2023 which had upheld
the challenge to Rule 6(1) in its entirety and Rule 10(2) to the extent it
prescribes the tenure of the Members of the State and the District
Commission to be four years by striking them down to that extent and
specifically to Para 31(D), which contained a recommendation that the
selection committee could consider following the procedure for
appointment of members of the state commission and President as well
as members of the District Consumer Forums by taking into consideration
the procedure that was prevailing vide Rule 8(18) of Rules of 2019 (Page
373ZK).
3.17. He also places reliance upon Madras Bar Association Vs. Union
of India and others, (2021) 7 SCC 369, specifically para 60.6 which
states that the persons to be appointed as members of the Tribunal, shall
be entitled for reappointment for at least one term by giving preference
to the service rendered by them for the Tribunal.
WP-7059.23+1-J.odt
3.18. Further reliance is placed upon Neena Aneja Vs. Jai Prakash
Associates (2022) 2 SCC 161, paras 82, 83 and 89 to contend that unless
a different intention appears, by virtue of Clause 6 of Section 6 of the
General Clauses Act, a repeal would not affect any right, privilege,
obligation or liability, acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment
and the right to continue the legal proceedings under the Old Consumer
Protection Act, continues to vest in a party.
3.19. He therefore submits Section 31 R/w S 107 (2) and (3) and
R/w Rule 14 of Consumer Protection Rules, 2020 R/w Rule 10(2) of the
Consumer Protection Rules, 2020, would indicate that the right of the
petitioners to be considered for reappointment based upon the procedure
as prescribed in Rules 34 of Rules of 2012 and 8(18) of the Rules of 2019
would indicate that the petitioners would not have to undergo the
written exam, but their reappointment has to be considered only on the
basis of the confidential reports, disposal of cases and conduct of
proceedings as President / Members of the Commission during their
earlier tenure.
3.20. He further contends, that there is no provision for conducting
fresh examination for the purpose of reappointment as is indicated by the
language of Section 10 of the Rules of 2020 and the State has not
considered the application for reappointment and treated the case of the
petitioners as fresh appointment in view of which the impugned order
dated 06.10.2023 needs to be quashed and set aside and the State be
directed to consider the matter afresh in view of what is mandated by the
Rule 34 of the Rules of 2012 and 8(18) of the Rules 2019.
3.21. He further submits that the appearance of these petitioners in
the examination and interview was for the post of the President /
Member of the State Commission and not on account of they seeking
reappointment and therefore, rejection by the selection committee by the
impugned order cannot come in their way of seeking reappointment to
the post of President / Member of the District Consumer Rederassal
Commission.
3.22. He further relies upon Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs. Kranti
Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya and others (2013) 10 SCC 234 and the
WP-7059.23+1-J.odt
judgment in Smita Shrivastava Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh in Civil
Appeal ___ 2024 decided on 03.5.2024 by the Hon'ble Apex Court to
contend that the petitioners would be entitled for the reinstatement as
President/Members of the respective District Commission which they
were holding upon the petition being allowed.
3.23. Mr. Malviya, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition
No. 2712/2023 in which the petitioner was appointed as Member of the
Addl. District Consumer Forum, Nagpur, which questions the same
impugned order, adopts the arguments of Mr. Mandlekar, learned counsel
for the petitioners."
4. On 12/03/2025, following position was recorded:
"4.1 Mr. Mandlekar, learned counsel for the petitioners in
continuation of his earlier arguments contends that since the petitioners,
were not considered for reappointment, however, since they were
continued in terms of the interim order dated 03/05/2023, granted by
the learned Division Bench in Writ Petition No.2496 of 2023 and were
entitled to be continued as such after the judgment was delivered on
20/10/2023, the termination of the petitioners on 06/10/2023 would be
in violation of the interim order dated 03/05/2023 in Writ Petition
No.2496 of 2023. He, therefore, submits that in case the petition is
allowed in favour of the petitioners, the petitioners would be entitled, to
be put back in the saddle by a restoration of the position prior to
06/10/2023 as ad hoc president/members of the respective district
forums and to continue as such, till the Hon'ble Apex Court renders a
judgment in the challenge laid before it, viz-a-viz the judgment in Writ
Petition No.2496 of 2023, which is presently pending before it, or till
such time, the second term would be over. He in support of this
contention, relies upon the order dated 29/02/2024, passed in
Confederation of Consumer Vigilance Center Register No.T.187/1997 v.
Union of India, Writ Petition No.7999 of 2024 by the learned Single
Judge of the Kerala High Court and specifically para-4 thereof; he further
relies upon Come On India v. Union of India, PIL No.982 of 2024 and the
order dated 31/05/2024 passed by the learned Division Bench of the
Allahabad High Court therein and also the order dated 04/07/2024
WP-7059.23+1-J.odt
passed in Raghupati Singh v. Union of India Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case
No.10067 of 2024 by the High Court at Patna (Para-6). He also invites
our attention to the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 27/06/2024
in Ganeshkumar Rajeshwarrao Selukar v. Mahendra Bhaskar Limaye, SLP
No.25612 of 2023 and specifically para-2, the interim relief granted by
the Court. He therefore submits that the petitioner would be entitled to
be put back in the saddle on an ad hoc basis in case this Court accepts
the entitlement of the petitioners for being considered for
reappointment."
5. Mr. N.S. Deshpande, learned DSGI for the respondent No.1, while
opposing the aforesaid submissions submits, that since the petitioners
have been treated as new entrants, they would be liable to undergo the
entire procedure, for appointment and cannot escape the same.
6. Mr. N.R. Patil, learned AGP for the respondent Nos.3 and 4, does
not dispute, the original appointments of the petitioners to the various
posts, as indicated above. He however, contends, that since the
petitioners have appeared in the exams, which has been held in
pursuance to the advertisement, they would not be entitled to the
benefit of the reappointment, but their claim will have to be considered
as a fresh appointment.
6.1. At the outset, it is necessary to clarify, that this Court is not
dealing with either the age limit or the Composition of the Committee,
WP-7059.23+1-J.odt
as that challenge has already been considered by the learned Division
Bench in Writ Petition No.3680 of 2023, decided on 20/10/2023,
against which Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.25612 of 2023 is already
pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court.
7. The limited question under consideration is the entitlement of the
petitioners for reappointment and the procedure to be followed for this
purpose. In this context, since the original appointments of the
petitioners as President and Members of the District Consumer Forums,
was under the CP Act, 1986, the relevant provisions therein will have to
be considered. The appointment of the petitioners, under the CP Act,
1986 was governed by Section 10 of the CP Act, 1986. That the
petitioners have been appointed by following the procedure as
contemplated under Section 10(1-A) after having satisfied the
requirement as contained in Section 10(1) thereof, is not a disputed
position. In that view of the matter, Section 10(2) of the CP Act, 1986
becomes material for consideration and is reproduced as under:
"10. Composition of the District Forum.-(1) Each District
Forum shall consist of, -
(a) .......
(b) Two other members one of whom shall be a woman,
who shall have the following qualifications, namely:-
(i) be not less than thirty-five years of age,
WP-7059.23+1-J.odt
(ii) possess a bachelor's degree from a recognised
university,
(iii) be persons of ability, integrity and standing, and
have adequate knowledge and experience of at least ten years
in dealing with problems relating to economics, law, commerce,
accountancy, industry, public affairs or administration:
Provided that .........
Provided that ........
2. Every Member of the District Forum shall hold office for
a term of five years or up to the age of sixty-five years,
whichever is earlier.
Provided that a Member shall be eligible for re-appointment for
another term of five years or up to the age of sixty-five years,
whichever is earlier, subject to the conditions that he fulfils the
qualifications and other conditions for appointment mentioned
in clause(b) of sub-section (1) and such re-appointment is also
made on the basis of the recommendation of the Selection
Committee. (emph.supd.)
Provided further that........
Provided also that ........."
The first proviso to Section 10(2) of the CP Act, 1986, confers a
right upon a person who has been selected as a Member of the District
Forum to be considered for reappointment for another term of five
years or up to the age of 65 years whichever is earlier, which is subject
to the fulfilling of the qualifications and conditions as mentioned in
Clause (b) of Sub-Section 1 of Section 10 and such reappointment is
also to be made on the recommendations of the Selection Committee.
In this context, it is necessary to consider what Section 10(1-b) of the
WP-7059.23+1-J.odt
CP Act, 1986 requires. It prescribes, qualifications, for a person to be
appointed as a Member of the District Consumer Forum, which are (i)
such a person should not be less than 35 years of age; (ii) Possesses a
bachelors degree from a recognized University and (iii) is a person of
ability, integrity and standing, and has adequate knowledge and
experience of at least 10 years in dealing with problems related to
Economics, Law, Commerce, Accountancy, Industry, Public Affairs or
Administration. The proviso thereto provides for the disqualifications
for a person to be appointed as a Member. The very fact, that the
petitioners have been appointed earlier as President and Members of
the District Consumer Forum, would indicate that the requirements of
Section 10 (1)(b)(i) and (ii) of the Act already stands satisfied and so
also, it would be an admitted position on record, that the proviso is not
attracted. In so far as the requirement of Section 10(1)(b)(iii) is
concerned, the same also stands satisfied, except for the fact, that the
integrity, has to be tested, on the basis of any material, which may
indicate any adverse position in that regard. It would, therefore, be
apparent, that for the purpose of considering the claim of a person, who
has already been appointed as a President / Member of the District
Consumer Forum to seek reappointment in terms of the proviso to
WP-7059.23+1-J.odt
Section 10(2) of the CP Act, 1986, all that would be required is for the
Committee to consider, his confidential reports and interview the
person, for the purpose of recommending such person, for another
term, which in turn would indicate that the procedure for appointment
which would entail the candidate, to have passed an examination, in
terms of Rule 10 of the Whole-Time President and Members of the
District Consumer Redressal Forum, Group-A under the Food, Civil
Supplies and Consumer Protection Department of the Government
(Recruitment) Rules, 2011, (Referred to as the "Recruitment Rules,
2011" hereinafter for the sake of brevity), would not be applicable, to
the petitioners. This is further apparent from Rule 34 of the
Recruitment Rules, 2011, which reads as under :
"34. In case of re-appointment of the Presidents and Members
of District Forum, as at the time of appointing the Presidents and
Members, the concerned candidate have undergone the selection
process as stated in the rules, it shall not be necessary for the said
candidates to undergo the same process of selection. However,
the re-appointment of the Presidents and Members shall be done,
if he satisfies the qualifications, on a recommendation of the
Selection Committee. The Selection Committee while making
recommendation shall take into consideration the Confidential
Reports, the disposal of cases, the performance during the time of
first appointment, a general reputation of a candidate and the
complaints, if any, pending against the candidate." (emph.supld.)
WP-7059.23+1-J.odt
8. Thus, when Rule 34 mandates, that for the purpose of
reappointment, as the candidate, had already undergone the selection
process as stated in the Rules, it shall not be necessary, for the said
candidate to undergo the same selection process, the same would
clearly relate, to the requirement of appearing in the examination for
the sake of reappointment, being done away with. This is moreso, as
Rule 34 of the Recruitment Rules, 2011 also indicates that the Selection
Committee while making recommendation shall take into consideration
the confidential reports, the disposal of cases, the performance during
the time of first appointment, the general reputation of the candidates
and the complaints, if any pending against the candidates. It would
therefore be apparent, that the sitting / past Members / Presidents of
the District Consumer or for that matter, the State Commission, to seek
reappointment, would not be required to appear in the written exam,
which is to be held for a fresh candidate to be considered for
appointment for the first time and such candidate seeking
reappointment, would be entitled to be considered for the
recommendation based upon consideration of the confidential reports,
the disposal of cases, the performance during the time of first
WP-7059.23+1-J.odt
appointment, the general reputation of the candidates and the
complaints, if any pending against the candidates.
9. This is, reiterated, in Rule 8(18) of the Consumer Protection
(Appointment, Salary, Allowances and Conditions of Service of
President and Members of the State Commission and District Forum),
Rules, 2019 [hereinafter for the sake of brief referred to as "The CP
(Appointment etc.) Rules, 2019"], which have been framed in exercise
of powers under Sections 10(3), 13(1)(c), 14(3), 16(2) and 30(2) of
the CP Act, 1986, which is as under:
"(18) In case of re-appointment of the President and Member of
the District Forum, as at the time of appointing the President and
Member, the concerned candidate have undergone the selection
process as stated in the rules, it shall not be necessary for the said
candidates to undergo the same process of selection. However, the
re-appointment of the President and Member shall be done, if he
satisfies the qualifications, on a recommendation of the Selection
Committee. The Selection Committee, while making
recommendation shall take into consideration the Confidential
Reports, the disposal of cases, the performance during the time of
first appointment, a general reputation of a candidate and the
complaints, if any, pending against the candidate." (emph.supd.)
which in sum and substance reiterates the position as stated in
Rule 34 of the Recruitment Rules, 2011.
WP-7059.23+1-J.odt
10. The position, therefore, that a candidate for reappointment
would not have to undergo a written examination, is spelt out from not
only the language of Rule 34 of the Recruitment Rules of 2011, but also
from what has been stated in Rule 8(18) of the CP (Appointment etc.)
Rules, 2019.
11. Since the CP Act, 2019 came into force on 09.08.2019 and the
petitioners, all of whom were appointed by the order 08.5.2018 (as
indicated in para 3.8 of what was recorded on 11.11.2024), and their
tenure of appointment at that time was yet to be completed, Mr.
Mandlekar, learned counsel for the petitioners, would be correct in
relying upon Section 31 of the CP Act, 2019, which is a transitional
provision and provides that any person appointed as President or the
Member of the District Commission, immediately before
commencement of the CP Act, 2019, shall hold office as President/
Member, till the completion of his term for which he has been
appointed. This in conjunction with Rule 14 of the Consumer Protection
(Salary, Allowances and Conditions of Service of President and
Members of the State Commission and District Commission) Model
Rules, 2020, which has come into force on 20.7.2020, which mandates
that the terms and conditions of service of the President and Members
WP-7059.23+1-J.odt
of the State and District Commission, shall not be varied to their
disadvantage during their tenure of office, would indicate, that the right
to be considered for reappointment as conferred upon the petitioners,
in terms of the first proviso to Section 10(2) of the CP Act, 1986, would
stand protected.
12. What is also necessary to be considered, is that though the
provisions of section 28 of the CP Act, 2019 does not contain any
analogous provision providing for reappointment of the President and
Members of the District Consumer Forum, however, Rule 10 of the CP
(Qualifications for Appointment, Method of Recruitment, Procedure for
Appointment, Term of Office, Resignation and Removal of the President
and Members of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules,
2020, provides for reappointment of existing members for a further
term, which stand amended by the notification dated 30/09/2022, by
replacing them with Rules 10(1) and 10(2) as under:
"10. Term of Office of President or Member.- (1) The President
of the State Commission shall hold office for a term of four
years or upto the age of sixty-seven years, whichever is earlier
and shall be eligible for reappointment for another term of four
years subject to the age limit of sixty-seven years, and such
reappointment shall be made on the basis of the
recommendation of the Selection Committee.
WP-7059.23+1-J.odt
(2) Every member of the State Commission and the
President and every member of the District Commission shall
hold office for a term of four years or upto the age of sixty-five
years, whichever is earlier and shall be eligible for
reappointment for another term of four years subject to the age
limit of sixty-five years, and such reappointment shall be made
on the basis of the recommendation of the Selection
Committee."
Though Rule 10(2) of the aforesaid Rules, has been struck down
in Dr.Mahendra Bhaskar Limaye (supra), the same is limited to the
extent, it prescribes the tenure of the members of the State Commission
and President and Members of the District Commission to be "four"
years. The provision of section 10(2) of the aforesaid Rules of 2020,
insofar as they relate to reappointment to be made on the basis of the
recommendation of the Selection Committee, continues to hold the
field. It would therefore be apparent that the right of being considered
for reappointment, of a member of a District/State Commission, stands
reiterated in the Rules framed under the CP Act of 2019, and the Rules
framed thereunder.
13. In view of the discussion above, it will therefore have to be held
that since the petitioners would be governed by the provisions of Rule
34 of the Recruitment Rules, 2011 and Rule 8(18) of the CP
(Appointment etc.) Rules, 2019, they will not be required to appear in
WP-7059.23+1-J.odt
any written exam for the purpose of reappointment and their
reappointment will have to be done by following the procedure as laid
down in Rule 34 of the Recruitment Rules, 2011 and Rule 8(18) of the
CP (Appointment etc.) Rules, 2019, till such time, proper procedure, is
provided for the said purpose as indicated in Dr.Mahendra Bhaskar
Limaye (supra).
14. That takes us to the factuality of the matter. To reiterate, the
petitioners were appointed as Presidents and Members of the District
Consumer Forums by the orders dated 08.5.2018 and 29.01.2019, on
account of which, the date on which the CP Act 2019 came into force
which was on 09.08.2019, their tenure was yet to be completed. Since
their tenure was nearing to completion, all the petitioners had applied
for reappointment to the posts which they were holding. The
application of the petitioner No. 3 for reappointment is dated
13.02.2023 (page 313), that of the petitioner No. 4 is dated 13.02.2023
(page 316) and that of the petitioner no. 6 is dated 13.03.2023 (page
317). This is also reflected from the table which is placed on
record along with the pursis dated 05.03.2025 which position is not
disputed.
WP-7059.23+1-J.odt
WP No. 7059/2023 (Bhaskar Yogi & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.)
S. APPOINTMENT NAME OF LAST REAPPOINTME PURSIS - 14-11-
N. ORDER DATE PETITIONER POSTING NT 2024
APPLICATION APPLICATION
DATE AFTER
ADVERTISEMENT
1 08/05/2018 Bhaskar B. Gondia, 27.3.2023 Member, State
(P 239) Yogi, President DCDRC, Commission on
02.06.2023
2 23/08/2018 Anand Joshi, Washim, 03.4.2023 Member, State
(P /245) President DCDRC (P/307) Commission on
02.06.2023
3 08/05/2018 Vrushali G. Bhandara, 13.2.2023 President, State
(P/235) Jagirdar, DCDRC (P/313) Commission on
Member 02.06.2023
4 08/05/2018 Shubhangi N. Amravati, 13/02/2023 (P President, State
(P/235) Kond, Member DCDRC 316) Commission on
02.06.2023
5 08/05/2018 Sarita B. Gondia, 06/04/2023 Member, State
(P/235) Raipure, DCDRC Commission on
member 05.06.2023
6 29.01.2019 Sarafraj Yavatmal, 13/03/2023 President, State
(P/249) Mujawar, DCDRC (P/317) Commission on
Member 02.06.2023
WP No. 7212/2023 (Avinash V. Prabhune Vs. Union of India & Ors.)
S. APPOINTMENT NAME OF LAST REAPPOINTME PURSIS - 14-11-
N. ORDER DATE PETITIONER POSTING NT 2024
APPLICATION APPLICATION
DATE AFTER
ADVERTISEMEN
T
1 08/05/2018 Avinash V. Nagpur 08/03/2023 Not applied for
(P/37) Prabhune, (Addl.) (P/49) Exam of New
Member, DCDRC Appointment as
DCDRC
15. That, the petitioners had indeed applied for reappointment is also
reflected from the table annexed to the impugned communication dated
06.10.2023 (pages 232 to 234), which records, that the applications for
WP-7059.23+1-J.odt
reappointment by these petitioners, stands rejected as there is no
recommendation by the selection committee.
16. A perusal of the impugned communication dated 06.10.2023,
specifically para 5 thereof indicates the following position.
^^4- njE;ku iqufuZ;qDrhlanHkkZr ek- mPp U;k;ky;kr nk[ky ;kafpdkaP;k vuq"kaxkus
lacf/kr ;kfpdkdrkZ ;kaps iqufuZ;qDrhlanHkkZr fuoM lferh f'kQklj djsi;Zr vFkok R;kaP;k o;kph
65 o"ksZ iw.kZ gksbZi;aZr dk;Zjr jkgw 'kdrhy vls va rfje vkns'k vlY;kus 'kklu vf/klwpuk fn-
20-6-2023 vUo;s ,dw.k 2- o fn- 26-7-2023 vUo;s 1 ;kfpdkdrk ;kaP;k lacaf/kr
v/;{k @ lnL; inkojhy dk;ZdkGkl eqnrok< ns.;kr vkyh vkgs-
5- ek- U;k- ds- vkj- Jhjke ;kaps v/;{krs[kkyhy fuoM lferhP;k fn- 1-8-2023
jksthP;k cSBdhr ek- mPp U;k;ky;kps iqufuZ;qDrhlanHkkZrhy ;kfpdsrhy funsZ'k rlsp
fo/kh o U;k; foHkkxkps vfHkizk; rlsp ek- loksZPp U;k;ky;kP;k fn- 3-3-2023
P;k funsZ'kkuqlkj ?ks.;kr vkysY;k fn- 25-6-2023 jksthph ys[kh ijh{kk cgqrka'k vtZnkjkauh fnyh
vlY;kph ckc fopkjkr ?ksmu loZ mesnokjkapk uo&fu;qDrhckcr fopkj dj.;kr ;sbZy vlk fu.kZ;
fuoM lferhus ?ksryk vkgs o vkrk vafrer% fuoM lferhP;k f'kQkj'kh fn- 15-9-2023
vUo;s izfl/n dj.;kr vkysY;k vkgsr-
6- foHkkxkdMs iqufuZ;qDrh dfjrk izkIr 33 vtZ vkf.k ;kfpdk dj.kkjs ijarq 'kklukdMs
iqufuZ;qDrh djrk vtZ ul.kkjs 3 mesnokj v'kk ,dw.k 36 vtZnkj @ mesnokjkaiSdh vafrer% ys[kh
ijh{kk o eqyk[krh ;kaP;k vk/kkjs 10 mesnokjkaph f'kQkjl fuoM lferhus dsysyh vkgs- ,dw.k 26
brD;k mesnokjkaph fuoM lferhdMwu f'kQkjl dsysyh ukgh-
7- fuoM lferhph f'kQkjl ulysY;k loZ 26 mesnokjkaph vtZ fudkyh dk<.;kr ;sr
vlY;kckcr rlsp ;kiSdh 16 mesnokjkauk R;akpk ek- mPp U;k;ky;kP;k varfje vkns'kkarxZrpk
dk;ZdkG fn- 15-9-2023 jksth vkiksvki laiq"Vkr vkysyk vlY;kckcr loZ laca/khrkauk vkiY;k
ekQZr dGfo.;kr ;kos] v'kh fouarh vkgs- rlsp fuoM lferhus f'kQkjl dsysY;k 10 mesnokjkaph
fu;qDrh 'kklu fu.kZ; fn- 5-10-2023 vUo;s dj.;kr vkyh vkgs- lkscr fuoM lferhph
f'kQkjl izkIr ulysY;k vtZnkjkaph ukos tksMyh vkgsr-**
WP-7059.23+1-J.odt
v- iqufuZ;qDrh lanHkkZrhy xzkgd jkT; Ekk-mPp vtZ fudkyh dk<.;kckcr
Ø- ;kfpdkdrkZ o vU; vtZnkj vk;ksxkrhy vk;ksx@ftYgk U;k;ky;kps
in v/;{k@ vk;ksxkps varfje
lnL; fBdk.k vkns'kkrxZr
dk;Zjr
vkgsr@ukghr
7 Jh-vkuan Hkkypanz tks'kh v/;{k ftYgk xzkgd ukgh fuoM lferhph f'kQkjl ulY;kus
(Petitioner No.2 in rØkj fuokj.k iqufuZ;qDrh vtZ fudkyh dk<.;kr ;sr
WP No.7059/2023) vk;ksx] vkgs-
okf'ke
8 Jh-HkkLdj cq/ndj.k v/;{k ftYgk xzkgd vkgs ¼fjV fuoM lferhph f'kQkjl ulY;kus
iq"ik ;ksxh rØkj fuokj.k ;kfpdk iqufuZ;qDrh vtZ fudkyh dk<.;kr ;sr
(Petitioner No.1 in vk;ksx] 2496@2023] vkgs- rlsp fn- 15-9-2023 jksth var-
WP No.7059/2023) xksanh;k ukxiwj½ fje vkns'kkarxZrpk dk;ZdkG vkiksvki
laiq"Vkr ;sr vkgs-
16 dq-ljhrk cGhjke jk;iqjs lnL; ftYgk xzkgd vkgs ¼fjV fuoM lferhph f'kQkjl ulY;kus
(Petitioner No.5 in rØkj fuokj.k ;kfpdk iqufuZ;qDrh vtZ fudkyh dk<.;kr ;sr
WP No.7059/2023) vk;ksx] 2496@2023] vkgs- rlsp fn-15-9-2023 jksth varfje
xksanh;k ukxiwj½ vkns'kkarxZrpk dk;ZdkG vkiksvki laiq"Vkr
;sr vkgs-
18 Jh-vfouk'k fouk;d izHkq.ks lnL; ftYgk xzkgd vkgs ¼fjV fuoM lferhph f'kQkjl ulY;kus
(Petitioner in WP rØkj fuokj.k ;kfpdk iqufuZ;qDrh vtZ fudkyh dk<.;kr ;sr
No.7212/2023) vk;ksx] 2496@2023] vkgs- rlsp fn-15-9-2023 jksth varfje
ukxiwj vfr- ukxiwj½ vkns'kkarxZrpk dk;ZdkG vkiksvki laiq"Vkr
fjDr ;sr vkgs-
20 Jhe-'kqHkkaxh fuGdaBjko dksaMs lnL; ftYgk xzkgd vkgs ¼fjV fuoM lferhph f'kQkjl ulY;kus
(Petitioner No.4 in rØkj fuokj.k ;kfpdk iqufuZ;qDrh vtZ fudkyh dk<.;kr ;sr
WP No.7059/2023) vk;ksx] 2496@2023] vkgs- rlsp fn- 15-9-2023 jksth
vejkorh ukxiwj½ varfje vkns'kkarxZrpk dk;ZdkG vkiksvki
laiq"Vkr ;sr vkgs-
21 Jhe- o`"kkyh th- tgkfxjnkj lnL; ftYgk xzkgd vkgs ¼fjV fuoM lferhph f'kQkjl ulY;kus
(Petitioner No.3 in rØkj fuokj.k ;kfpdk iqufuZ;qDrh vtZ fudkyh dk<.;kr ;sr
WP No.7059/2023) vk;ksx] HkaMkjk 2496@2023] vkgs- rlsp fn- 15-9-2023 jksth
ukxiwj½ varfje vkns'kkarxZrpk dk;ZdkG vkiksvki
laiq"Vkr ;sr vkgs-
23 Jh-,l-vkj-eqtkoj lnL; ftYgk xzkgd ukgh fuoM lferhph f'kQkjl ulY;kus
(Petitioner No.6 in rØkj fuokj.k iqufuZ;qDrh vtZ fudkyh dk<.;kr ;sr
WP No.7059/2023) vk;ksx] vkgs-
okf'ke
17. A perusal of the above, would clearly indicate, that the
applications for reappointment, made by the petitioners, were never
considered at all, in view of the fact that most of them had appeared in
WP-7059.23+1-J.odt
the written examination. This however, is without consideration of the
fact, that the petitioners had appeared in the examinations, for a higher
post, than what they were holding earlier, to which earlier posts they
had sought reappointment. That the petitioners had appeared in the
examination for a higher post, is a position not disputed by the learned
counsel for the respondents.
18. The impugned decision dated 06/10/2023, therefore to reject the
applications of the petitioners for reappointment, without considering
them in terms of the mandate of the first proviso to Section 10(2) of the
CP Act, 1986, read with Rules 34 of the CP (Recruitment) Rules, 2011
and Rule 18(8) of the CP (Appointment etc.) Rules, 2019 read with
Rule 10(2) of the Rules of 2020, clearly cannot be sustained and is
required to be quashed and set aside, which we accordingly so do. We,
however, clarify, that what we have held above, regarding the
entitlement of the petitioners to be considered for reappointment would
be subject to the final decision by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil)
No. 25612/2023 and other connected matters, in which the judgment
of the learned Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.3680 of
2023, dated 20/10/2023 upholding the challenge to the validity of Rule
WP-7059.23+1-J.odt
6(1) and 10(2) of the Consumer Protection Rules, 2020 is under
challenge.
19. That takes us, to the plea by Mr. Mandlekar, learned counsel for
the petitioners, that the petitioners are entitled for restoration of the
position prior to their vacating the posts occupied by them respectively
as President and Members of the respective District Consumer Fora, in
which they were continued in terms of the interim order dated
03/05/2023 by the learned Division Bench in WP No.2496 of 2023, by
which it is contended that they were entitled to continue as such even
after the judgment was delivered on 20/10/2023.
20. In this context, it would be material to note, that the petitioners,
have been relieved of their respective posts, on 06/10/2023, which is
an admitted position. It was at that point of time itself, open for the
petitioners, to have approached the Court, which was considering WP
No.2496 of 2023, for challenging the order dated 06/10/2023, and to
get themselves back in the saddle. This however has not been done. The
petitioners therefore, admittedly are not in the saddle since
06/10/2023. Now to put them back, in saddle, merely because, we
have held, that they would be entitled to be considered for
reappointment, would in our considered opinion, not permissible, more
WP-7059.23+1-J.odt
so for the reason, that Rule 34 of the Whole Time Presidents and
Members of the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Group-A, under the
Food, Civil Supplies, Consumer Protection Department (Recruitment)
Rules, 2011 and Rule 8(18) of the Consumer Protection (Appointment,
Salary, Allowance and Conditions of Service of Presidents and Members
of State Commission and District Commission) Rules 2019, permit
reappointment, only upon the recommendation of the Committee and
not otherwise. Since challenge to the composition of the Committee is
already before the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is an admitted position that
the Committee is not functioning and would be constituted only
consequent to the decision by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Though,
Mr.Mandlekar, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon
Confederation of Consumer Vigilance Center Register No.T.187/1997 v.
Union of India; Come On India v. Union of India, Raghupati Singh v.
Union of India; and Ganeshkumar Rajeshwarrao Selukar v. Mahendra
Bhaskar Limaye, (supra), however, in light of the fact, that the situation
in respect of the present petitioners, has seen a change, on account of
they being put out of office, on 06/10/2023, which position, they have
permitted to continue till date, in our considered opinion, it would not
be now permissible, for us, to put them back in saddle, specifically
WP-7059.23+1-J.odt
when the issue regarding the composition of the Committee is already
pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The prayer in this regard,
therefore, stands rejected.
21. In view of the above discussion, the petition is partly allowed, by
setting aside the impugned communication dated 06/10/2023, insofar
as it relates to the present petitioners, who are held to be eligible to be
considered for reappointment, in terms of Rule 34 of the Whole Time
Presidents and Members of the District Consumer Redressal Forum,
Group-A, under the Food, Civil Supplies, Consumer Protection
Department (Recruitment) Rules, 2011 and Rule 8(18) of the Consumer
Protection (Appointment, Salary, Allowance and Conditions of Service
of Presidents and Members of State Commission and District
Commission) Rules 2019, subject to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in SLP (Civil) No.25612/2023 and other connected matters.
22. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. In the circumstances,
there shall be no order as to costs.
(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)
KHUNTE / DESHPANDE
Signed by: Mr. G.S. Khunte
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 29/04/2025 15:39:15
