Per Ghulam Mohammed, J.

This Writ Petition is filed with a prayer to declare the action of the respondents in appointing the 4th respondent as Lady Member, District Consumer Forum, Kadapa, as arbitrary and also to declare that the writ petitioner herein is eligible for appointment to the post of Lady Member, District Consumer Forum, Kadapa, in terms of Section 10 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act'), subject to fulfillment of qualification and other conditions for appointment in terms of Section 10(1)(b) and 10(3) of the Act and to direct the respondents to consider the claim of the writ petitioner herein for re-appointment as Lady Member in District Consumer Forum, Kadapa.

2. The facts, In brief, are that as the petitioner possesses the required qualification, she was appointed as a Lady Member, District Consumer Forum, Kadapa, and she worked as such for two terms i.e. from 21.04.1999 to 20.04.2004 and from 12.07.2004 to 11.07.2009. It is stated that during the second term she submitted an application dated 26.03.2009 to the State Commission, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, requesting to consider her case for reappointment and the same was not considered. Later, a notification for the post of Lady Member, District Consumer Forum, Kadapa, dated 22.07.2009 was issued by the second respondent wherein it is made clear that the existing members of the said Forums may also seek re-appointment for another term under Section 10(2) of the Act. The relevant portion reads as follows.

"...... This notification is subject to the re-appointment, if any, of eligible, existing Members of the above Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums on the basis of their performance. The eligible sitting members of the above District Forums who are seeking reappointment for another term U/s.10 (2) of the C.P. Act are also required to submit their applications through proper channel.

The eligible sitting members who are seeking re-appointment for another term U/s.10 (2) of C.P. Act need not sit for written examination. However, they are required to appear for interview whenever called for. Their merit will be assessed on the basis of their past performances simultaneously with assessment of the suitability of the candidates who will go through the process of selection under Rule 6-A of A.P. State Consumer Protection Rules, 1987."

It is stated that, though she submitted an application dated 27.07.2009 seeking her reappointment through proper channel, the same was not considered and she came to know that the 4th respondent herein was selected for the said post. According to the petitioner, as per Section 10 (2) of the Act every Member of the District Consumer Forum shall hold office for a term of five years or up to the age of 65 years, whichever is earlier and, according to the proviso thereof, 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, and such reappointment is also made on the basis of the recommendation of the Selection Committee. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondents have misunderstood Section 10 (2) of the Act and the proviso thereof to the effect that a person shall hold the office for a term of five years or up to the age of sixty-five years whichever is earlier and there is embargo that a Member is not eligible for reappointment for more than one term. According to the petitioner, a person is eligible for re-appointment any number of times up to the age of sixty-five years.

3. Though initially the appointment of 4th respondent for the said post is challenged, since the 4th respondent has already joined in the said post, the learned counsel for the petitioner has restricted her claim only to that of the eligibility of the petitioner for re-appointment and, therefore, the eligibility or otherwise of the 4th respondent to hold the said post need not be gone into.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that th