SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 24202

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.DHANDAPANI, J
S.M.Meera Mohideen – Appellant
Versus
The Principal Secretary to Government Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department Government of TamilNadu – Respondent
Writ Petition | Article 226



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.R.Sureshkumar for M/s.K.M.Vijayan Associates
For the Respondents: Mr.M.Rajendiran Additional Government Pleader

The court affirmed that a member's tenure may extend beyond its term until the completion of the recruitment process, aligning with Supreme Court directives.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Consumer Protection (Qualification for Appointment, Method of Recruitment, Procedure of Appointment, Term of Office, Resignation and Removal of the President and Members of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020 - Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed to extend the petitioner's service as Member, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, due to the incomplete recruitment process. (Paras 3.1 and 6)

(B) Tenure - As per Rule 10 of the 2020 Rules, the tenure of members is for four years or until the age of sixty-five, whichever is earlier. The court mandates that if tenure ends prior to recruitment completion, continuation in service must be allowed. (Paras 6)

(C) Legal Principle - The Supreme Court's ruling in Ganeshkumar Rajeshwarrao Selukar is applicable, stating that appointments should be continued until the recruitment process is finalized. The court asserts the importance of adhering to procedural requirements while resolving appointments. (Paras 4 and 5)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was appointed on 21.03.2022 with a tenure ending on 27.03.2026. There is no ongoing recruitment for the position.

Findings of Court:
The respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to continue in service until the new recruitment is completed.

Issues: The primary issue under consideration was whether the petitioner could continue in service after the conclusion of the tenure due to the pending recruitment process.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the service of the petitioner must be extended in light of the Supreme Court's directive, enforcing the rights of the petitioner under the applicable rules concerning recruitment and term.

Result: Writ Petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. supreme court directions on appointment status. (Para 4)
2. respondent's acknowledgment of facts. (Para 5)
3. direction for continuation of service until recruitment process completion. (Para 6)
4. writ petition allowed with no costs. (Para 7)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27-02-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI S.M.Meera Mohideen ..Petitioner Vs

1. The Principal Secretary to Government Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department Government of TamilNadu Secretariat, Fort St. George Chennai 600009. 2. The Registrar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar Park Town, Chennai 600003.

..Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to issue appropriate Government Orders extending the service of the petitioner and consequently directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue in service as Member, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Villupuram beyond 27.03.2026 with continuity of service, salary and all other attendant and concomitant service and pay benefits, until the completion of the recruitment process under the new rules, in strict compliance with the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 dated 21.05.2025 in Ganeshkumar Rajeshwarrao Selukar and others Vs.Mahendra Bhaskar Limaye and Others.

For Petitioner: Mr.R.Sureshkumar for M/s.K.M.Vijayan Associates For Respondents: Mr.M.Rajendiran Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking a direction to the 1st respondent to issue appropriate Government Orders extending the service of the petitioner and consequently, directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue in service as Member, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Villupuram beyond 27.03.2026 with continuity of service, salary and all other attendant and concomitant service and pay benefits, until the completion of the recruitment process under the new rules, in strict compliance with the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 9982 of 2024 dated 21.05.2025 in Ganeshkumar Rajeshwarrao Selukar and others Vs.Mahendra Bhaskar Limaye and Others.

2.Heard the learned counsels appearing on either side. With the consent of both sides, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing at the admission stage itself.

3. The brief facts of the case is as follows:

3.1. The petitioner has been selected as Member, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Villupuram through Government Order dated 18.03.2022 and appointed vide proceedings dated 21.03.2022 and took charge on 28.03.2022. The petitioner's recruitment and appointment were made in accordance with the Consumer Protection (Qualification for Appointment, Method of Recruitment, Procedure of Appointment, Term of Office, Resignation and Removal of the President and Members of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2020 Rules). As per Rule 10 of the 2020 Rules (as amended in 2022), every member of the State Commission and the President and every Member of the District Commission shall hold office for a term of four years or upto the age of sixty-five years, whichever is earlier and shall be eligible for reappointment for another term of four years subject to the age limit of sixty five years and such reappointment shall be made on the basis of the recommendation of the Selection Committee. The petitioner's tenure as Member is due to end on 27.03.2026. However, the petitioner is entitled to continue till the recruitment process under the New Rules to be notified and hence, the present Writ Petition for the aforesaid relief.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ganeshkumar Rajeshwarrao Selukar and Ors vs Mehendra Bhaskar Limaye and Ors reported

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top