In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated:- 02.07.2009 Coram :- The Honourable Mr.Justice D.MURUGESAN and The Honourable Mr.Justice K.VENKATARAMAN W.P.No.11864 of 2009 M.P.No.1 of 2009 S.V.Vasudevan ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep by its Secretary Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department Fort St. George Chennai 9. 2. The Registrar Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission 212 R.K.Mutt Road Mylapore Chennai 4. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of declaration declaring notification No.1 of 2009 dated 15.6.2009 on the file of the second respondent herein insofar as the age qualification of advocates is concerned as unconstitutional, illegal and void. For Petitioner :- Mr.T.Murugamanickam For Respondents :- Mr.Raja Kalifullah, Govt. Pleader ORDER (Order of the Court was made by D.MURUGESAN J.) The petitioner is an advocate practising at Erode. He is aged about 58 years. He enrolled himself as an Advocate on 17.8.1983 and has been practising in Erode from the said date onwards. The Registrar, Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission issued Notification No.1 of 2009 inviting https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ applications for appointment to the post of Presidents in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Fora to be made by direct recruitment under Section 10(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. As we are concerned with qualifications, the same is reproduced hereunder:- Qualifications:-Retired District Judges: Retired as District Judge on superannuation Advocates: (1) Must possess a Degree in Law of a University in India established or incorporated by or under a Central Act or a State Act or an Institution recognised by the University Grants Commission or any other equivalent qualification and got enrolled in the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu; and in the case of candidates enrolled in the Bar Councils of other States, they should submit proof of transfer of their enrolment to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu. (2) Must be practising on the date of Notification as an advocate and must have so practised for a period of not less than 7 years as on such date. In case of Advocate, he/she must not have completed 48 years of age in the case of SC/ST and 45 years in case of others as on 1.7.2009. In case of Retire District Judges must not have completed the age of 65 years as on 1.7.2009. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that no age restriction is is prescribed for the District Judges to apply for the post of President. On the other hand in the case of Advocates alone, age limit of 48 years in the case of SC/ST candidates and 45 years in the case of others as on 1.7.2009 is prescribed. 3. Mr.T.Murugamanickam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that by virtue of Section 30 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Consumer Protection Act 1986 hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', the State Government, by Notification, may make rules among other things including the qualifications for the post of President as sought to be made under sub-section. There are no rules https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ prescribed by the State Government stipulating the qualifications particularly as to the minimum age restriction. In the absence of any rule, the notification prescribing the upper age restriction is without authority of law and consequently the same should be declared as illegal. 4. Mr.Raja Kalifullah, the learned Government Pleader would on the other hand submit that in terms of Section 10 of the said Act, even a person who is qualified to be a District Judge is eligible and if that be so, the qualification prescribed by the Tamil Nadu Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules 2007 could be made applicable to the post of President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. By that Rule, the age restriction is imposed at 48 years for SC/ST candidates and 45 for other candidates and therefore the notification also prescribed the qualification as to the age. Hence, the notification cannot be questioned on the ground that there are no rules prescribing the qualification as to the age restriction. 5. In response to the above submission, Mr.T.Murugamanickam the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Act being a Central enactment, the qualification and the eligibility norms prescribed under Section 10 of the Act would apply even to the retired District Judges of other others States and for that matter even the Advocates from other states. There cannot be such anomaly. Since the relevant rules for appointment to the post of President for the other states are also applicable to those candidates and in all probability those qualifications may also vary and the restriction on age limit to advocates is discriminatory. 6. We have bestowed our consideration to the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side. 7. Section 10 of the Act reads as under:- 10. Composition of the District Forum – Each District Forum shall consist of (a) a person who is, or has been, or is qualified to be a District Judge, who shall be its President ; 8. By that Section the serving District Judge or a retired District Judge is eligible to be considered for the post. It appears that a Division Bench of this Court, while hearing a batch of writ petitions in W.P.Nos.15364 of 1999 etc., noticed that in spite of specific provision enabling the Advocates also to apply https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ for the post of President in the District Forum, so far only the retired judges are considered and therefore by order dated 13.3.2008 directed the Government to receive and consider the applications from qualified Advocates as well. By virtue of the said direction, the impugned notification included the Advocates as well to be eligible to make applications for appointment to the post of President. 9. The question is whether age restriction can be imposed only insofar as the Advocates are concerned or not ? It is true that so far as the serving or retired District Judges are concerned no age restriction is prescribed except stating that they are entitled to continue as Presidents till the age of 65 years or 5 years of service whichever is earlier. When it comes to the question of Advocates applying to the said post, of course the State Government should have framed the Rules prescribing the qualifications in terms of Section 30(2) of the Act. It is also not in dispute that neither the State Government framed Rules nor the Central Government in exercise of the power under Section 30(1) of the Act. In the absence of above provision the State Government is certainly justified in taking into consideration the rules relating to the qualifications for the post of District Judges framed for the said purpose. The Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules notified G.O.Ms.No.79 dated 19.1.2007 prescribing the following qualifications for the post of District Judge at the Entry level. (2) Must be practising on the date of Notification as an advocate and must have so practised for a period of not less than 7 years as on such date. Must not have attained the age of 48 years in the case of SC/ST and 45 years in case of others as on 1st July of the year in which the selection for appointment is made. 10. The impugned notification is in conformity with the above qualifications. Section 10(1)(a) provides that a person who is qualified to be a District Judge is also entitled to apply for the post. The qualification for a person to be appointed as District Judge is prescribed under the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules. Hence, in our opinion, the petitioner cannot challenge the qualifications prescribed in the notification. Such qualification is prescribed strictly in terms of the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service Rules, which in our opinion would be the proper course to be followed by the State Government making an Advocate eligible to apply for the said post. As the petitioner belongs to Erode the argument relating to the application of the provision as regards the candidates belonging to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ other states requires no consideration on the facts of the case. 11. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected M.P. is closed. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar krr/ To 1. The Secretary Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department Fort St. George, ennai 9. 2. The Registrar Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission 212 R.K.Mutt Road Mylapore, Cennai 4. 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.28413 1 cc To Mr.T.Murugamanickam, Advocate, SR.28119 W.P.No.11864 of 2009 ssk(co) pmk.7.8.2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/