THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.22109 of 2009 25.3.2010 Between: Smt.A.Anuradha, W/o.V.Jwala Narasimha Sarma …Petitioner and The Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Represented by its Registrar and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.22109 of 2009 ORDER: First respondent herein issued notification in ‘The Hindu’ English daily dated 25.7.2009 inviting applications from qualified and eligible candidates for appointment to the posts of Members/Lady Members of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums, Mahabubnagar, Hyderabad, Karimnagar, Nizamabad, East Godavari, Visakhapatnam, Khammam, Kadapa, Chittoor Ranga Reddy, Vizianagaram, Prakasam and Medak. Petitioner applied for the post. A written test was conducted on 03.10.2009. Petitioner did not receive hall ticket and, therefore, she could not appear. On 11.10.2009, she filed instant writ petition seeking writ of Mandamus declaring the action of first respondent in conducting written test on 03.10.2009 without issuing call letter to her and without postponing the test due to floods is illegal and arbitrary. Her case is that she is Post Graduate in Commerce (M.Com.,), that she enclosed experience certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant and that since 2005 she is practicing as an Advocate. Therefore denial of hall ticket to her is illegal and arbitrary. The Registrar of first respondent filed counter stating that the petitioner did not submit her application in prescribed format and that she stated in the application that she was enrolled as Member of Bar Council in 2005. Therefore she does not possess requisite experience of 10 years in dealing with problems relating to economics, law, commerce, accountancy, industry, public affairs or administration. It is also alleged that she does not possess qualification specified under Section 10(1)(b) (iii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the Act). It is further stated that after scrutinising all the applications received, hall tickets were sent to 114 candidates. Out of them, 78 candidates appeared for written test. After valuation of the answer papers, ranks were given as per Rule 6A of the A.P. State Consumer Protection Rules, 1987. As the petitioner did not possess requisite qualification, her application was rejected. Along with counter affidavit, petitioner’s application dated 29.7.2007 and her bio-data are also annexed. This Court heard the counsel for petitioner and the Assistant Government Pleader for respondents. Section 10(1) of the Act is to the effect that each District Forum shall consist of a person who is/has been qualified as District Judge as the President. There shall be two Members – one male and another female; who shall have the following qualifications. 10(1)(b) (iii) be persons of ability, integrity and standing, and have adequate problems relating to economics, law, commerce, accountancy, industry public affairs or administration: Provided that a person shall be disqualified for appointment as a member, if he- (a) has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for an offence which, in the opinion of the State Government, involves moral turpitude; or (b) is an undischarged insolvent; or (c) is of unsound mind and stands so declared by a competent court; or (d) has been removed or dismissed from the service of the Government or a body corporate owned or controlled by the Government; or (e) has, in the opinion of the state Government, such financial or other interest as is likely to affect prejudicially the discharge by him of his functions as a member; or (f) has such other disqualifications as may be prescribed by the State Government. The qualifications under Section 10(1)(b)(iii) of the Act are ability, integrity, standing, adequate knowledge and experience of at least 10 years in dealing with problems relating to economics, law, commerce, accountancy, industry, public affairs or administration. The list of qualified Members for appointment as Lady Members in Kadapa District has been placed before this Court. It shows that all the candidates declared qualified are advocates with 10 years standing whereas the petitioner admittedly started her practice on 17.11.2005. Therefore she is not eligible on this score. Petitioner however claims that she passed M.Com in 1991 and worked in the Office of Chartered Accountant. A perusal of the original application along with bio-data would belie any such contention, which appears to be afterthought. Therefore, this Court is convinced that decision of first respondent that petitioner is not qualified for the post of Lady Member in District Consumer Forum, Kadapa, does not warrant any interference nor illegal. The writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. ________________ March 25, 2010. (V.V.S.RAO, J) YS