IMPORTANT POINT
The qualifications for appointment as members of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions under the Rules of 2020 are distinct for different categories, and candidates qualifying under Rule 3(2)(a) are not subject to the written examination requirements applicable to those under Rule 3(2)(b).

JUDGMENT/ORDER

A.S.CHANDURKAR, J. - RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith and the learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length.

2. The petitioner on being duly qualified came to be appointed as President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Buldana on 6/2/2013. On completion of her tenure of five years, she sought reappointment on the post of President, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission by moving an application dtd. 17/10/2017. After conducting viva-voce examination in accordance with the Model Rules, 2012, the petitioner was re-appointed on the said post by the order dtd. 5/2/2018. The tenure of the petitioner was till 10/2/2023. However in view of the orders passed Public Interest Litigation No. 11 of 2021 [Vijaykumar Bhima Dighe Versus Union of India & Others], the said tenure was extended till 1/3/2023. In absence of any further order of continuation the petitioner demitted Office on 1/3/2023.

3. In Vijaykumar Bhima Dighe (supra) the constitutional validity of Rule 3(2)(b), Rule 4(2)(c) and Rule 6(9) of the Consumer Protection (Qualification for Appointment, Method of Recruitment, Procedure of Appointment, Term of Office, Resignation and Removal of President and Members of State Commission and District Commission) Rules of 2020 (for short, 'the Rules of 2020') were challenged. The Division Bench by its judgment dtd. 30/7/2021 upheld the said challenge and declared Rule 3(2)(b), Rule 4(2)(c) and Rule 6(9) of the Rules of 2020 to be arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Union of India was directed to provide for appropriately made Rules as substitute for the Rules that were held to be unconstitutional. The Secretary, Ministry of Consumer Affairs challenged the aforesaid judgment before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Secretary Ministry of Consumer Affairs Versus Dr.Mahindra Bhaskar Limaye & Others [2023 LiveLaw (SC) 161]. The said appeals were decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 3/3/2023. The Hon'ble Supreme Court did not interfere with the judgment of this Court declaring the aforesaid Rules to be arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It however issued directions under Article 142 of the Constitution of India indicating the course to be followed till the said Rules were amended.

4. In accordance with the directions issued under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the respondent-Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection through its Joint Secretary issued a notice dtd. 23/5/2023 inviting applications for the posts of Member of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission as well as the President and members of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short, 'the Act of 2019'). Alongwith the said advertisement a notice was published prescribing the qualification criteria which reads as under:-

"Qualification Criteria for the Post of Member, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, President and Member of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (as per Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment dtd. 3/3/2023 in C.A.831/2023) :- a person having bachelor's degree from a recognized University and who is a person of ability, integrity and standing, and having special knowledge and professional experience of not less than 10 years in consumer affairs, law, public affairs, administration, economics, commerce, industry, finance, management, engineering, technology, public health or medicine shall be treated as qualified."

5. According to the petitioner, she was eligible to apply for appointment on the post of Member, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission under Rule 3(2)(a) of the Rules of 2020 since she claimed to have experience of at least ten years as the Presiding Officer of a Tribunal at equivalent level. Since the advertisement and the notice published alongwith it did not indicate the manner in which appl