KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.

( 1 ) BY way of this writ petition the petitioner is seeking directions against the respondents to appoint her as Member (Female), District Forum, Delhi pursuant to advertisement dated 06. 04. 2006. The facts of the case as set out in the petition are that the petitioner was earlier selected for the post of Member (Female), District Forum, Delhi on which post she continued to work till 18. 10. 2006. In the meantime, on 06. 04. 2006 respondent No. 2 through an advertisement invited applications from the suitable candidates for appointment on the post of Member (Female), District Forum, Delhi. The total number of existing vacancies were three and the last date of receipt as notified in the advertisement was 21. 04. 2006. In the month of April, 2006 the petitioner had gone abroad when the said advertisement was published and she had applied against the said post vide her application dated 01. 05. 2006 after coming back to india on 28. 04. 2006. The petitioner had submitted her application for the said post with a covering letter seeking condonation of delay in submitting her application. As per the petitioner approximately 54 candidates had applied for the said post, out of which only 45 applications were found in order and accordingly, interview letters were issued only to 45 candidates including the petitioner also. Initially the date of interview was fixed as 16. 09. 2006 but later on the same was changed to 08. 11. 2006 when besides other candidates petitioner also appeared before the Interview Board, comprising of three members including the Chairman. On 28. 12. 2006 the respondents issued appointment letter to two selected candidates against three vacancies. The petitioner after having come to know about the declaration of selection of two candidates immediately made a representation to respondent No. 2. When no action was taken on the representation of the petitioner, the petitioner has preferred the present petition seeking her appointment on the said post of Member (Female), District forum, Delhi.

( 2 ) I have heard Mr. V. K. Rao, counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Geeta Luthra, counsel for the respondents. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner had moved her application just after ten days from the expiry of the last date and she had filed her application along with the covering letter seeking condonation of delay of ten days. The submission of counsel for the petitioner is that once the petitioner was called for interview vide letters dated 31. 08. 2006 and 15. 10. 2006 pursuant to which the petitioner, in fact, appeared in interview on 08. 11. 2006 then the respondents are estopped under law to now change their decision. Counsel has further stated that it is only after the decision to condone the delay, the petitioner was called for an interview and this decision of the respondent was unqualified. Another contention which has been raised by the petitioner is that the petitioner being erstwhile member of District Forum was eligible for re-appointment for another term of five years and, therefore, case of the petitioner could not have been treated as a case of fresh appointment. The counsel has invited my attention to sub Clause (1) (a) and proviso of Clause (2) of Section 10 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986 so as to distinguish the petitioner's case being that of re-appointment from the other direct candidates. It would be relevant to reproduce Section 10 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as under :-

"10. Composition of the District Forum " (1) Each District Forum shall consist of -(a) a person who is, or has been, or is qualified to be a District judge, who shall be its President; (b) two other members, one of whom shall be a woman, who shall have the following qualifications, namely :- (i) be not less than thirty-five years of age, (ii) possess a bachelor's degree from a recognised university, (iii) be persons of ability, integrity and standing, and have adequate kno