The State Government is bound to act on the recommendation of the Selection Committee for the appointment of the President of the District Consumer Forum.

Seeking to quash the impugned Letter No.29369/H1/2010-9 dated 19.10.2011 issued by the 1st respondent State Government and the consequent Notification No.3/2011 dated 11.11.2011 issued by the 3rd respondent State Consumer Commission and for a further direction to the respondents to appoint him as the President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in any of the existing vacancies as per the recommendation of the High Level Selection Committee dated 12.05.2011, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition.

2. Facts of the case, as put forth by the petitioner, in the affidavit would run thus:

2.1. The petitioner entered into service on 14.08.1973 with the qualification of B.Sc., B.L. Degrees. He held several positions in the Tamil Nadu Judicial Service viz., Judicial Magistrate, District Munsif, Subordinate Judge, Chief Judicial Magistrate, District and Sessions Judge. He attained superannuation on 30.04.2010 and thereafter, he has been serving in the preset position as Additional Judge, Evidence Recording-III, City Civil Court, Chennai.

2.2. The 3rd respondent, Tamil Nadu Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission invited applications for appointment to one post of President to the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum vide Notification No.1/2011 dated 07.01.2011 by way of Direct Recruitment as provided under Section 10(1A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, in short, "the Act". Only retired Judges were notified as eligible candidates and they must not have completed 65 years of age as on 01.02.2011. The term of office was for a period of five years from the date of assumption of office or up to the age of 65 years, whichever would be earlier. The appointment should be made on the recommendation of the Selection Committee constituted under Section 10 (1A) of the Act.

2.3. The petitioner submitted application in response to the above notification. Totally, 11 candidates including the petitioner were in competition. The 3rd respondent called the petitioner for interview on 12.05.2011 at 10.30 a.m. vide Letter dated 05.05.2011. Ten candidates including the petitioner appeared for interview. The petitioner produced all the necessary materials viz. Bio Data, Educational and Experience Certificates, etc. The Selection Committee, after an elaborate interview and detailed verification of documents, unanimously selected the petitioner.

2.4. The Selection Committee had been constituted as provided under Section 10(1A) of the Act. It comprises three members, viz., the Chairman of the Tamil Nadu Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (a retired Hon'ble High Court Judge), the Secretary to the Government (Department of Law) and the Principal Secretary to the Government (Department of Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection).

2.5. The petitioner came to understand that the Selection Committee forwarded its unanimous resolution of selecting and recommending the petitioner for the said post to the State Government by a Letter dated 12.05.2011 for the issuance of the order of appointment. But, the State Government, instead of issuing the order of appointment, directed the 3rd respondent Consumer Commission to issue a fresh notification inviting applications for the same post after the declaration of results of the Local Bodies through the Letter of the 2nd respondent Secretary, dated 29.09.2011.

2.6. In response to the above Letter, the 3rd respondent Registrar seems to have sent a reply to the 2nd respondent Secretary requesting the State Government to issue necessary orders on the basis of the Selection Committee's earlier recommendation dated 12.05.2011 at an early date in order to avoid inconvenience to the litigant public, as the post had been remaining vacant for more than five months, which had given rise to pendency of cases. However, instead of acting upon the said request made by the 3rd respondent Consumer Commission, the 1st respondent wrote a letter dated 19.10.2011 again requesting suitable