The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the qualifications for appointment as district judges under Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India and the Provisions of Section 10(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, to determine the eligibility of respondents 2 and 3 for the said appointments.

K. R. PRASADA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS petition is filed in "public interest" under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners, who are practicing advocates praying for a writ of mandamus to declare the appointment of 2nd and 3rd respondents as the presidents to the consumer dispute redressal forums of Bangalore rural district and karwar district, as void, illegal and unconstitutional.

( 2 ) RESPONDENTS 2 and 3 were appointed as presidents of consumer dispute redressal forums known as "district forums of Bangalore rural district, Bangalore and karwar district" respectively by the first respondent in government notification No. Ans 74 slf 98, dated 1-7-1998 exercising powers under Section 10 (1) of the consumer protection Act, 1986 (in short, 'the act' ). According to the petitioners, respondents 2 and 3 are not qualified to be appointed as presidents of the district forums since they have not held the office of the district judge at any time. Respondent 2 had joined service in this court as assistant registrar (administrative) and was later promoted as registrar (administration) which post he held till 30-6-1998, the date of his retirement. Respondent 3 had retired as public prosecutor and never worked as district judge at any time. Petitioners contended that respondents 2 and 3 are not qualified to be the district judges according to the criteria laid down in the Provisions of Article 233 (2) of the Constitution of India si nee both of them were not practicing advocates for a minimum period of v Years by the date of their appointment and since they were in service of the state, petitioners contend that they are ineligible to be appointed as district judge and therefore cannot be considered as qualified as district judges, more so after their superannuation. Petitioners, therefore, sought for a declaration that the appointment of respondents 2 and 3 to the post of post of president of district forum to which they stand posted is illegal, void and unconstitutional.

( 3 ) RESPONDENTS 1 to 3 entered their appearance and filed their separate objections. In the objections filed by respondent 1, it is contended that respondents 2 and 3 are eligible and are qualified to be appointed as district judges since both of them have completed 7 years of practice at the bar. Respondent 2 had completed 7 years of practice at the bar before he was appointed as deputy registrar by this court. Similarly, respondent 3 had also completed 7 years of practice at the bar before joining service as public prosecutor. It is not necessary that a person to be eligible for appointment as a district judge should be practicing at the bar on the date of appointment. The state government while making the appointment has taken into consideration the recommendations of the selection committee as required under the Provisions of Section 10 (1-a) of the Act, since respondents 2 and 3 were not in service by the date on which they were appointed as presidents of the consumer forums and were qualified to be appointed as district judges according to the criteria laid down under Article 233 (2) of the constitution, they are eligible to be appointed as presidents of district forums. ,

( 4 ) IN the separate objections filed by respondent 2 he contended that the writ petition is not maintainable since there is no 'public interest' involved herein and it has been filed at the instance of the 2nd petitioner who bears malice against him. He further contended that he was practicing as an Advocate at mandya bar association after his graduation in law and enrolled as an Advocate on 11-1-1971 and he has completed 7 years of practice at the bar by the date of joining the service in this court as deputy registrar. Later, he was promoted as registrar (administration) of this court on 31-7-1988 which post he held till 30-6-1998 the date of his retirement. Thus, he claimed that he was qualified to be appointed as district judge according to the criteria laid down un

Click Here to Read the rest of this document