Case Note & Summary
These were three writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court challenging Rule 6(1) and Rule 10(2) of the Consumer Protection (Qualification for Appointment, method of recruitment, procedure for appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of the President and members of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020, as well as the advertisement dated 23.05.2023 and notifications constituting a Selection Committee. Writ Petition No. 3680 of 2023 was filed by a practising advocate who had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 1096 of 2021 in which Rules 3(2)(d), 4(2)(c) and 6(9) were quashed by judgment dated 14.09.2021 in Vijaykumar Bhima Dighe v. Union of India. The State's review application was withdrawn on 24.03.2023 with a direction to complete appointments within three months. Petitioners challenged the new advertisement and notifications as contrary to law. Writ Petition No. 2107 of 2023 was filed by members of District Commissions seeking a declaration of eligibility for reappointment, having earlier completed written examination and interview; they challenged Rule 10(2) to the extent it restricted tenure to four years. Writ Petition No. 2496 of 2023 was filed by Presidents and members of District Commissions seeking similar declarations. Civil applications were filed by advocates supporting and opposing the petitions. The main legal issues were the validity of Rule 6(1) prescribing a Selection Committee comprising a High Court Judge as Chairperson and two executive members, the validity of Rule 10(2) restricting tenure, the legality of the advertisement and negative marking, and the binding nature of Article 142 directions. Petitioners relied on Rojer Mathew, Madras Bar Association (MBA III and IV) to argue that inclusion of executive members violated separation of powers. Intervenors argued that the District and State Consumer Commissions are courts discharging judicial functions, that Article 142 directions could not be ignored, and that negative marking changed the rules of the game after commencement, citing A.P. Public Service Commission v. B. Swapna, K. Manjusree and Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. Opposing applicants challenged locus standi and contended all qualified candidates were necessary parties. The court heard arguments on September 01, 2023 and pronounced judgment on October 20, 2023. The provided text ends while discussing the challenge to Rule 6(1) and does not include the court's final analysis or operative order.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Separation of Powers - Validity of Selection Committee Composition - Consumer Protection (Qualification for Appointment, method of recruitment, procedure for appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of the President and members of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020, Rule 6(1) - Petitioners challenged Rule 6(1) on the ground that inclusion of two executive members (Secretary in charge of Consumer Affairs of the State Government and nominee of the Chief Secretary) with Chief Justice of High Court or nominated Judge as Chairperson violates doctrine of separation of powers and is contrary to decisions in Rojer Mathew and Madras Bar Association (MBA III and IV). The court heard arguments on this challenge and considered the text of Rule 6(1). (Paras 3, 6) B) Service Law - Public Employment and Recruitment - Eligibility for Reappointment and Tenure - Consumer Protection (Qualification for Appointment, method of recruitment, procedure for appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of the President and members of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020, Rule 10(2) - Petitioners who had completed selection process including written examination and interview sought declaration of eligibility for reappointment to posts of President/Members of District Commissions. They challenged Rule 10(2) to the extent it restricted tenure of District Commission to four years. (Para 3) C) Administrative Law - Recruitment Process - Change in Rules of Game after Commencement - Consumer Protection (Qualification for Appointment, method of recruitment, procedure for appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of the President and members of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020 and Advertisement dated 23.05.2023 - Intervenor applicants alleged that prescription of deduction of 1/4 mark for each wrong answer (negative marking) which was not provided in Rules of 2020 amounts to changing rules of game after commencement. They relied on Secretary, A.P. Public Service Commission v. B. Swapna, K. Manjusree v. State of A.P. and Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve. (Para 4) D) Constitutional Law - Article 142 Directions and Judicial Functions of Consumer Commissions - District/State Commission as Court - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 142 - Intervenors argued that District and State Commission is a Court discharging judicial functions and directions issued by Supreme Court under Article 142 in Secretary, Ministry of Consumer Affairs cannot be violated by Department while issuing advertisement; advertisement not in consonance with Article 142 directions liable to set aside. (Para 4) E) Civil Procedure - Locus Standi and Necessary Parties - Requirement of Impleading All Qualified Candidates - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - Applicant in CAW 2449 challenged locus of petitioner in WP 3680 and urged that all candidates who qualified in written examination are necessary parties. Reliance placed on State of Kerala v. Rafia Rahim. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether Rule 6(1) of the Consumer Protection (Qualification for Appointment, method of recruitment, procedure for appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of the President and members of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020 violates the doctrine of separation of powers by including executive members in the Selection Committee; whether Rule 10(2) restricting tenure to four years and denying reappointment eligibility is invalid; whether the advertisement dated 23.05.2023 and notifications constituting Selection Committee are illegal; whether negative marking in the recruitment process amounts to changing rules of the game after commencement.
Law Points
- Rule 6(1) of Consumer Protection Rules 2020 challenged for violating doctrine of separation of powers
- Rule 10(2) restricting tenure of District Commission to four years challenged
- eligible members with prior selection claim right to reappointment
- negative marking prescribed in advertisement without rule basis amounts to changing rules of game
- directions under Article 142 of Constitution of India binding
- District and State Consumer Commissions discharge judicial functions
- writ petitions under Article 226 of Constitution maintainable.
