[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
