ORDER :

1. The petitioner, who is a practicing lawyer having enrolled in Chhattisgarh State Bar Association in the Year 2001 and member of Chhattisgarh High Court Bar Association has filed the instant petition challenging the order dated 09.02.2023 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No. 2/Under Secretary, Food Civil Supply and Consumer Prevention Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District-Raipur (C.G.) by which candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Member, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Korba (C.G.) has been rejected on the count that the petitioner has not submitted 15 years experience certificate. The petitioner has also challenged paragraph 11(4) of the advertisement dated 02.08.2023 (Annexure P/2) issued by respondent No. 2 by which the working experience certificate should have been issued by District Legal Authority or District Judge or any authorized person by the District Judge after issuance of advertisement and it should not be three months prior to issuance of advertisement.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that rejection of the candidature of the petitioner on the pretext that experience certificate submitted by the petitioner is not as per the norms and is erroneous one as the petitioner is continuously work practicing in the High Court of Chhattisgarh and having certificate issued by the High Court Bar Association, therefore, he fulfilled the requisite qualification and accordingly submitted the requisite certificate, as such, rejection of the candidature is erroneous one and would pray for quashing of the order (Annexure P/1) and clause 11(4) of the advertisement. He would further submit that since the State Government has adopted the rules framed by the Central Government known as Consumer Protection (Qualification for Appointment, Method or Recruitment, Procedure for Appointment, Terms of Office, Resignation and Removal of the President and Member of the State Commission and District Commission) Rule, 2020 (for short “the Rule, 2020”) vide notification dated 08.02.2021, wherein, as per Rule 4 Qualification for appointment of President and Member of District Commission has been prescribed. Rule 4(2) deals with the appointment of Member provides that (a) is of not less than 35 years of age, (b) possessed a bachelor degree from a recognized university, (c) if a person of ability, integrity and standing and having special knowledge and professional experience of less than 15 years in consumer affairs, law public affairs administration, economic, commerce, industry, finance, management, engineering, technology, public health or medicine.

3. He would further submit that from bare perusal of the rule, there is no restriction provided that certificate should have been issued by the District Legal Authority or District Judge or his nominee, therefore, providing Clause 11(4) of the advertisement, is beyond the competency of the respondent, as such, it is erroneous and would pray for allowing the petition.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that Section 29 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short “the Act 2019”) provides qualification, allowances and other terms and condition of service of president and member of District Commission and Section 43 deals with qualification etc. of president and member of State Commission. Section 101 of the Act, 2019 provides power of the Central Government to make rules and in exercise of power conferred by virtue of Section 101 of the Act, 2019 has framed rules and Rule 6 provides procedure for appointment which reads as under:

“6. Procedure of appointment:

(1) The President and members of the State Commission and the District Commission shall be appointed by the State Government on the recommendation of a Selection Committee, consisting of the following persons, namely