S.V.Vasudevan v. The State of Tamil Nadu repby its SecretaryCo-operation, Food and Consumer Protection DepartmentFort St. GeorgeChennai

In the High Court of Judicature at MadrasDated:- 02.07.2009Coram :-The Honourable Mr.Justice D.MURUGESAN andThe Honourable Mr.Justice K.VENKATARAMANW.P.No.11864 of 2009M.P.No.1 of 2009 S.V.Vasudevan ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The State of Tamil Nadu repby its SecretaryCo-operation, Food and Consumer Protection DepartmentFort St. GeorgeChennai 9.2. The RegistrarTamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission212 R.K.Mutt RoadMylaporeChennai 4. ... RespondentsPrayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution ofIndia praying to issue a writ of declaration declaring notificationNo.1 of 2009 dated 15.6.2009 on the file of the second respondentherein insofar as the age qualification of advocates is concerned asunconstitutional, illegal and void. For Petitioner :- Mr.T.Murugamanickam For Respondents :- Mr.Raja Kalifullah, Govt. PleaderORDER (Order of the Court was made by D.MURUGESAN J.) The petitioner is an advocate practising at Erode. He isaged about 58 years. He enrolled himself as an Advocate on17.8.1983 and has been practising in Erode from the said dateonwards. The Registrar, Tamil Nadu State Consumer DisputesRedressal Commission issued Notification No.1 of 2009 inviting https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ applications for appointment to the post of Presidents in theDistrict Consumer Disputes Redressal Fora to be made by directrecruitment under Section 10(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act1986. As we are concerned with qualifications, the same is reproducedhereunder:-Qualifications:-Retired District Judges:Retired as District Judge on superannuation Advocates:(1) Must possess a Degree in Law of aUniversity in India established orincorporated by or under a Central Act ora State Act or an Institution recognised bythe University Grants Commission or any otherequivalent qualification and got enrolled inthe Bar Council of Tamil Nadu; and in the caseof candidates enrolled in the Bar Councils ofother States, they should submit proof oftransfer of their enrolment to the BarCouncil of Tamil Nadu.(2) Must be practising on the date ofNotification as an advocate and must have sopractised for a period of not less than 7years as on such date.In case of Advocate, he/she must not havecompleted 48 years of age in the case of SC/STand 45 years in case of others as on1.7.2009.In case of Retire District Judges must nothave completed the age of 65 years as on1.7.2009.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that no age restrictionis is prescribed for the District Judges to apply for the post ofPresident. On the other hand in the case of Advocates alone, agelimit of 48 years in the case of SC/ST candidates and 45 years inthe case of others as on 1.7.2009 is prescribed. 3. Mr.T.Murugamanickam, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner would submit that by virtue of Section 30 (2) of theTamil Nadu Consumer Protection Act 1986 hereinafter referred to asthe 'Act', the State Government, by Notification, may make rulesamong other things including the qualifications for the post ofPresident as sought to be made under sub-section. There are no rules https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ prescribed by the State Government stipulating the qualificationsparticularly as to the minimum age restriction. In the absence ofany rule, the notification prescribing the upper age restrictionis without authority of law and consequently the same should bedeclared as illegal. 4. Mr.Raja Kalifullah, the learned Government Pleader wouldon the other hand submit that in terms of Section 10 of the said Act,even a person who is qualified to be a District Judge is eligibleand if that be so, the qualification prescribed by the Tamil NaduJudicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules 2007 could be madeapplicable to the post of President of the District Consumer DisputesRedressal Forum. By that Rule, the age restriction is imposed at 48years for SC/ST candidates and 45 for other candidates and thereforethe notification also prescribed the qualification as to the age.Hence, the notification cannot be questioned on the ground thatthere are no rules prescribing the qualification as to the agerestriction. 5. In response to the above submission, Mr.T.Murugamanickamthe learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that theAct being a Central enactment, the qualification and the eligibilitynorms prescribed under Section 10 of the Act would apply even tothe retired District Judges of other others States and for thatmatter even the Advocates from other states. There cannot be suchanomaly. Since the relevant rules for appointment to the post ofPresident for the other states are also applicable to thosecandidates and in all probability those qualifications may alsovary and the restriction on age limit to advocates isdiscriminatory. 6. We have bestowed our consideration to the rivalsubmissions made by the learned counsel on either side. 7. Section 10 of the Act reads as under:-10. Composition of the District Forum –Each District Forum shall consist of(a) a person who is, or has been, or isqualified to be a District Judge, who shall beits President ;8. By that Section the serving District Judge or a retiredDistrict Judge is eligible to be considered for the post. Itappears that a Division Bench of this Court, while hearing a batchof writ petitions in W.P.Nos.15364 of 1999 etc., noticed that inspite of specific provision enabling the Advocates also to apply https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ for the post of President in the District Forum, so far only theretired judges are considered and therefore by order dated 13.3.2008directed the Government to receive and consider the applicationsfrom qualified Advocates as well. By virtue of the said direction,the impugned notification included the Advocates as well to beeligible to make applications for appointment to the post ofPresident. 9. The question is whether age restriction can be imposed onlyinsofar as the Advocates are concerned or not ? It is true that sofar as the serving or retired District Judges are concerned no agerestriction is prescribed except stating that they are entitled tocontinue as Presidents till the age of 65 years or 5 years of servicewhichever is earlier. When it comes to the question of Advocatesapplying to the said post, of course the State Government shouldhave framed the Rules prescribing the qualifications in terms ofSection 30(2) of the Act. It is also not in dispute that neither theState Government framed Rules nor the Central Government inexercise of the power under Section 30(1) of the Act. In the absenceof above provision the State Government is certainly justified intaking into consideration the rules relating to the qualificationsfor the post of District Judges framed for the said purpose. TheTamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rulesnotified G.O.Ms.No.79 dated 19.1.2007 prescribing the followingqualifications for the post of District Judge at the Entry level. (2) Must be practising on the dateof Notification as an advocate and musthave so practised for a period of not lessthan 7 years as on such date.Must not have attained the age of 48years in the case of SC/ST and 45 years incase of others as on 1st July of theyear in which the selection forappointment is made. 10. The impugned notification is in conformity with the abovequalifications. Section 10(1)(a) provides that a person who isqualified to be a District Judge is also entitled to apply for thepost. The qualification for a person to be appointed as DistrictJudge is prescribed under the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service(Cadre and Recruitment) Rules. Hence, in our opinion, thepetitioner cannot challenge the qualifications prescribed in thenotification. Such qualification is prescribed strictly in termsof the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service Rules, which in our opinionwould be the proper course to be followed by the State Governmentmaking an Advocate eligible to apply for the said post. As thepetitioner belongs to Erode the argument relating to theapplication of the provision as regards the candidates belonging to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ other states requires no consideration on the facts of the case. 11. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition isdismissed. Consequently, the connected M.P. is closed. No costs. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrarkrr/To1. The SecretaryCo-operation, Food and Consumer Protection DepartmentFort St. George, ennai 9.2. The RegistrarTamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission212 R.K.Mutt RoadMylapore, Cennai 4.1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.284131 cc To Mr.T.Murugamanickam, Advocate, SR.28119 W.P.No.11864 of 2009ssk(co)pmk.7.8.2009