2022 Supreme(Chh) 60

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, J.
Priya Agrawal & Ors. – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. – Respondents
Writ Petition (S) No.42 of 2022
Decided on : 01-02-2022

The post of President of District Commission under Section 28(1) of the Act of 2019 for the aforesaid six districts is a single isolated post in each district and therefore it is not amenable to the rule of reservation under the Act of 1994.

Headnote:

The writ petition filed by the petitioners challenging 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, is dismissed.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, who are advocates, filed a writ petition challenging 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.

Finding of the Court:

1. The post of President of District Commission under Section 28(1) of the Act of 2019 for the aforesaid six districts is a single isolated post in each district and therefore it is not amenable to the rule of reservation under the Act of 1994. 2. The petitioners, though are more than 45 years of age on the date of advertisement 15-7-2021, are fully eligible qua their age for appointment on the post of President, District Commission and the act of the respondents declaring them ineligible is clearly arbitrary. 3. The petitioners are not qualified for the post of President, District Commission in terms of Rule 4(1) of the Rules of 2020 read with Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India.

Issues: 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?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The rule of reservation as contemplated in the Act of 1994 would not be applicable to the single isolated post of President of District Commission in each of the districts, as such, the post of President of District Commission is not amenable to any reservation. 2.1) The petitioners, though are more than 45 years of age on the date of advertisement 15-7-2021, are fully eligible qua their age for appointment on the post of President, District Commission and the act of the respondents declaring them ineligible is clearly arbitrary. 2.2) The petitioners are not qualified for the post of President, District Commission in terms of Rule 4(1) of the Rules of 2020 read with Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India.

Final Decision: The writ petition filed by the petitioners challenging 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, is dismissed.