IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 25117 of 2006 Between: 1 Smt. D. Suseela, W/o P. Satyanarayana, Lady Member District Consumer Forum-I Visakhapanam. 2 Smt. U. Sunitha, W/o MVR. Sharma, Lady Member District Consumer Forum Medak at Sangareddy. 3 Smt. V. Aparna, W/o K. Chandrasekhar Reddy, Lady Member District Consumer Forum Nalgonda. 4 Smt. C. Preethi, W/o K. Tirupathi Reddy, District Consumer Forum, Kurnool. 5 I. Shivamageswar Rao, S/o I. Venkateswar Rao, Male Member District Consumer Forum Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 6 Y. Krishna, S/o Y. Rajanarsimhulu, Male Member District Consumer Forum Nizamabad. 7 S. Siva Rama Krishna, S/o S.V. Krishnaiah, Male Member District Consumer Forum Guntur. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by Commissioner, Civil Supplies and Ex-Officio Secretary A.P. Consumer Affairs, Food & Civil Supplies, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2. The A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Khairtabad, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ order or direction more one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the proposed action of the respondents in proceedings with the selection process by proposing to conduct written examination on 03-12-2006 pursuant to the Notification in Roc. No. 32/APSCDRC/Admn./dt 08-12-2005 issued by the 2nd respondent proposing to fill-up the Vacancies Lady and Male Members of the District Consumer Forums in the State so far as notifying the vacancies of Lady and Male Members of the District Consumer Forums at Visakhapatnam - I, Medak at Sanga Reddy, Nalgonda, Kurnool, Krishna at Machilipatnam, Nizamabad and Guntur respectively also against which the petitioners are working as Members without taking a decision with regard to the Continuance of the petitioners as Members for another term in terms of Section 10(2) of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to section 10(2) of the Consumer protection Act of 1986 and consequently direct the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners for their reappointment as members of the Respective District consumer forums by de-notifying their vacancies from the notification dt. 08-12-2005 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.M.SUBBA REDDY. Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES. The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in proposing to conduct written examination on 03- 12-2006 pursuant to the Notification in ROC.NO.32/APSCDRC/Admn./dt.08-12-2005 to fill up the vacancies of male and female Members of District Consumer Forums at Visakhapatnam - I, Medak at Sanga Reddy, Nalgonda, Kurnool, Krishna at Machilipatnam, Nizamabad and Guntur as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Section 10(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 2. It is to be noted that when a policy decision is taken by the Government to notify the vacancies inviting applications from all the eligible candidates, including Advocates, the petitioners cannot claim, as a matter of right, that they should be considered for reappointment, since they are sitting Members. 3 . It is noteworthy that pending this writ petition, the petitioners have appeared for the written examination and participated in the selection process. In the circumstances, the claim of petitioners that they being sitting members, their cases should be considered for reappointment, does not merit consideration. 4. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, we do not see any ground to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly liable to be dismissed. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed, consequently W.P. M.P. No.19259 of 2009 stands dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________________ VILAS.V.AFZUL PURKAR, J July 22, 2009. DSH/KK.