The High Court emphasized the obligation to comply with the Supreme Court's directives regarding the tenure of consumer commission members, prohibiting reinterpretation by subordinate authorities.

ORDER :

1. The Petitioner was working as President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Khurda at Bhubaneswar. Annexure-2 to the writ petition, i.e. Office Order dated 05.05.2025 notifying the superannuation of the Petitioner on attaining the age of 65 years is the subject matter of our scrutiny in view of the judgment dated 21.05.2025 (under Annexure-3) passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ganeshkumar Rajeshwarrao Selukar and Others vs. Mahendra Bhaskar Limaye and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1193.

2. In Ganeshkumar Rajeshwarrao Selukar (supra), considering the SLP (C) No. 25612 of 2023, the Hon'ble Supreme Court issued direction as follows (from SCC Online Print) –

“DIRECTIONS

102. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we deem it fit to pass the following directions, in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 142 of the Constitution :-

1) The Union of India is directed to file an affidavit on the feasibility of a permanent adjudicatory forum for consumer disputes, either in the form of a Consumer Tribunal or a Consumer Court, within a period of 3 months from today, on the touchstone of the constitutional mandate. Such a forum shall consist of permanent members, including both staff and the Presiding officers. The Union of India may also consider facilitating sitting Judges to head the fora. The strength may be increased adequately.

2) In view of the submission made on behalf of the Union of India, we direct the Union of India to notify the new Rules within a period of 4 months from the date of this Judgment, strictly adhering to the following :

a. The earlier view of this Court in Rojer Mathew (supra, MBA-III (supra) and MBA –IV (supra), with respect to the tenure of office being five years, being both logical and necessary, must be incorporated in the new Rules to be notified.

b. The composition of the Selection Committee shall be such that the members from the Judiciary must constitute the majority. To achieve the same, the Selection Committee shall comprise two members from the Judiciary, one of whom shall be the Chairperson, and the third member from the Executive, all of whom shall have voting rights. However, this shall not preclude the concerned Secretary from being an ex-officio Member of the Selection Committee, without voting rights. The proposal made by the Union of India qua Rule 6(1) of the 2020 Rules, may be accordingly modified.

c. No written examination, followed by a viva voce, shall be required for appointment and reappointment to the posts of President of the State Commission, Judicial Members of the State Commission and President of the District Commission.

d. A written examination followed by a viva voce shall be required only for appointment and reappointment to the posts of Non-Judicial Members of the State Commission and Members of the District Commission.

e. The written examination for appointments to the State and District Commissions shall be conducted in consultation with the respective State Service Commissions.

f. The proposal made by the Union of India qua Rule 4(1) of the 2020 Rules, as recorded by us in Para 72 of this Judgment, that the qualification for appointment to the post of President of the District Commission, shall be restricted to either a serving or a retired District Judge, stands accepted.

Upon notification of the new Rules by the Union of India, all the States are directed to complete the process of recruitment under the same, within a period of 4 months from the date of the notification of the said Rules.

As regards the status of appointment to the posts of Presidents and Members of