Arun Bhansali, J.

These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners inter alia seeking a direction for quashing the advertisement dated 13/6/2018, allow the petitioners to participate in the process of appointment on the post of President on the vacant seats of District Consumer Forums and consider the candidature of the petitioners for appointment on the said post in accordance with law.

2. While the petitioner Kanhaiya Lal Jogi is the President of District Consumer Forum, Doongarpur, petitioner Deen Dayal Prajapat is a President of District Consumer Forum, Jalore, where they were appointed in the year 2013.

3. The respondent State issued an advertisement dated 13/6/2018 calling for applications from eligible candidates for the post of President on various vacant positions/positions to be vacated by 31/12/2018. The advertisement included the post of President for District Consumer Forum Doongarpur and Jalore also. The eligibility inter alia was indicated in terms of Section 10(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ('the Act, 1986').

4. Pursuant to the advertisement dated 13/6/2018, both the petitioners filled-in applications along with relevant documents, however, in the list published by the respondents for interview for the posts of President for various District Consumer Forums, names of the petitioners were not included. Whereafter, on 21/8/2018 a revised notice was issued, whereby, dates of interview were preponed. The petitioners made representations for inclusion of their names for consideration for the post of President by way of re-appointment, however, when the same was not responded to, the petitioners filed the present writ petitions questioning the non-inclusion of their names for re-appointment to the post of President of District Consumer Forum.

5. By interim order passed by this Court in both the writ petitions, the respondents were directed to consider the candidature of petitioners for re-appointment as per Section 10(2) of the Act, 1986 for the post of President of District Consumer Forum.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners, with reference to proviso to Section 10(2) of the Act, 1986 that the petitioners are eligible for re-appointment and, therefore, action of the respondents in excluding the names of petitioners from the list of candidates called for interview is absolutely illegal and the said action deserves to be quashed and set aside.

7. Submissions were made that definition of 'Member' under Section 2 (jj) of the Act, 1986 includes the 'President' of the National Commission or a State Commission or a District Forum, as the case may be and as proviso to Section 10(2) of the Act, 1986 provides that a member shall be eligible for re-appointment for another term of five years or up to the age of sixty-five years, whichever is earlier, the petitioners having not completed 65 years of age are eligible for re-appointment and as such the action of the respondents cannot be sustained.

8. Submissions were made that the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi also called for applications and specifically provided in the eligibility criteria for the post of President, District Forum that President having good track record shall be eligible for re-appointment for another term of five years or up to the age of 65 years, whichever is earlier, which clearly establishes that the President of the District Forums are also eligible for re-appointment.

9. Further submission has been made in the rejoinder that the stand taken by the respondents pertaining to ineligibility of the President of the District Forum for re-appointment is factually wrong and have given reference of re-appointment of Mr. Rao Usman Ali and Mr. Mohan Lal Tailor in the past, who were President and were re-appointed as they had not completed 65 years of age at the time of re-appointment.

10. Submissions have also been made that the stand of the State Government regarding ineligibility based on the fact that t