Gauhati High Court Stays Recruitment To Assam Consumer Commission Citing Supreme Court 's Order

Justice Kaushik Goswami of the Gauhati High Court has stayed the recruitment process for the post of Non-Judicial Member of the Assam State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission , ruling that the selection process was initiated in violation of a Supreme Court direction mandating the framing of fresh rules.

A Recruitment Process Under Scrutiny

The interim order came in a writ petition filed by Tutumoni Deva Goswami and two others, who challenged Advertisement No. 33/2025 dated December 13, 2025 , issued by the Assam Public Service Commission (APSC) and a subsequent notification published in The Assam Tribune on July 2, 2026 . The petitioners argued that the State could not proceed with recruitment under 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 , after the Supreme Court had struck down key provisions of those rules.

The Supreme Court 's Mandate

The petitioners relied heavily on the Supreme Court 's decision in Ganesh Kumar Rajeswar Rao Selukar and Others v. Dr. Mahendra Bhaskar Limaye and Others [(2025) 8 SCC 634], which affirmed the Bombay High Court 's striking down of Rules 6(1) and 10(2) of the 2020 Rules . The apex court had directed the Union of India to notify new Rules within four months and, crucially, ordered that all States complete recruitment only under those fresh Rules.

State's Defense and Court's Response

The State of Assam, represented by Senior Advocate D. Majumdar , conceded that no fresh Rules had been framed. However, it argued that the government had reconstituted the Selection Committee in line with the Supreme Court 's judgment, purportedly under Rule 6(1) of the existing 2020 Rules . The court rejected this contention, noting that the apex court had specifically directed that recruitment be undertaken only after the notification of new Rules by the Union of India .

A Prima Facie Case

Justice Goswami observed that the recruitment process appeared to have been initiated under the Consumer Protection Rules, 2020 , despite Rules 6(1) and 10(2) being struck down. The court held that the petitioners had made out a strong prima facie case for interim protection, and the balance of convenience lay in favour of maintaining the status quo . Denying relief, the court noted, would render the writ petition infructuous .

Key Observations

The court quoted paragraph 105.3 of the Supreme Court 's judgment, which states: "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."

The High Court further observed: "In the present case, admittedly, no fresh Rules have been brought on record. Prima facie , therefore, the recruitment process appears to have been initiated under the Consumer Protection Rules, 2020 , notwithstanding that Rules 6(1) and 10(2) thereof stand struck down by the Apex Court."

The Decision

As an interim measure, the court stayed the operation of the impugned advertisement and notification. It also directed that the petitioners be permitted to continue as Members of their respective District Consumer Commissions until they attain the age of superannuation or until further orders, whichever is earlier. The matter is listed for further hearing on August 27, 2026 .