K. R. PRASADA RAO, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition is filed in "public interest" under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners, who are practicing advocates praying for a writ of mandamus to declare the appointment of 2nd and 3rd respondents as the presidents to the consumer dispute redressal forums of Bangalore rural district and karwar district, as void, illegal and unconstitutional. ( 2 ) RESPONDENTS 2 and 3 were appointed as presidents of consumer dispute redressal forums known as "district forums of Bangalore rural district, Bangalore and karwar district" respectively by the first respondent in government notification No. Ans 74 slf 98, dated 1-7-1998 exercising powers under Section 10 (1) of the consumer protection Act, 1986 (in short, 'the act' ). According to the petitioners, respondents 2 and 3 are not qualified to be appointed as presidents of the district forums since they have not held the office of the district judge at any time. Respondent 2 had joined service in this court as assistant registrar (administrative) and was later promoted as registrar (administration) which post he held till 30-6-1998, the date of his retirement. Respondent 3 had retired as public prosecutor and never worked as district judge at any time. Petitioners contended that respondents 2 and 3 are not qualified to be the district judges according to the criteria laid down in the Provisions of Article 233 (2) of the Constitution of India si nee both of them were not practicing advocates for a minimum period of v Years by the date of their appointment and since they were in service of the state, petitioners contend that they are ineligible to be appointed as district judge and therefore cannot be considered as qualified as district judges, more so after their superannuation. Petitioners, therefore, sought for a declaration that the appointment of respondents 2 and 3 to the post of post of president of district forum to which they stand posted is illegal, void and unconstitutional. ( 3 ) RESPONDENTS 1 to 3 entered their appearance and filed their separate objections. In the objections filed by respondent 1, it is contended that respondents 2 and 3 are eligible and are qualified to be appointed as district judges since both of them have completed 7 years of practice at the bar. ( 3 ) RESPONDENTS 1 to 3 entered their appearance and filed their separate objections. In the objections filed by respondent 1, it is contended that respondents 2 and 3 are eligible and are qualified to be appointed as district judges since both of them have completed 7 years of practice at the bar. Respondent 2 had completed 7 years of practice at the bar before he was appointed as deputy registrar by this court. Similarly, respondent 3 had also completed 7 years of practice at the bar before joining service as public prosecutor. It is not necessary that a person to be eligible for appointment as a district judge should be practicing at the bar on the date of appointment. The state government while making the appointment has taken into consideration the recommendations of the selection committee as required under the Provisions of Section 10 (1-a) of the Act, since respondents 2 and 3 were not in service by the date on which they were appointed as presidents of the consumer forums and were qualified to be appointed as district judges according to the criteria laid down under Article 233 (2) of the constitution, they are eligible to be appointed as presidents of district forums. , ( 4 ) IN the separate objections filed by respondent 2 he contended that the writ petition is not maintainable since there is no 'public interest' involved herein and it has been filed at the instance of the 2nd petitioner who bears malice against him. He further contended that he was practicing as an Advocate at mandya bar association after his graduation in law and enrolled as an Advocate on 11-1-1971 and he has completed 7 years of practice at the bar by the date of joining the service in this court as deputy registrar. Later, he was promoted as registrar (administration) of this court on 31-7-1988 which post he held till 30-6-1998 the date of his retirement. Thus, he claimed that he was qualified to be appointed as district judge according to the criteria laid down under Article 233 (2) of the Constitution and, therefore, he became eligible to be appointed as president of the district forum. Thus, he claimed that he was qualified to be appointed as district judge according to the criteria laid down under Article 233 (2) of the Constitution and, therefore, he became eligible to be appointed as president of the district forum. According to him, second petitioner has a grievance against him for the reason that in his capacity as working president of the high court employees' co-operative house building co-operative society limited had to inform him that he was not eligible for an allotment of site as he had retired from service long prior to the formation of the society. In this connection, the second petitioner has filed a case bearing No. Jrba, 3 / 1994-95 before the joint registrar of co-operative societies, Bangalore, which is pending. On account of this ill-will, he has chosen to file this present writ petition. He, therefore, contended that this petition has been filed not in "public interest" but to wreck private vengeance against him. ( 5 ) RESPONDENT 3 has filed his separate objections contending that he had practiced as an Advocate for more than 7 years prior to his appointment as assistant public prosecutor from the date of his enrolment as an Advocate i. e. , 20-12-1967. This respondent has entered into service of the state government as an assistant public prosecutor on 13-11-1975 find was promoted as public prosecutor which post he held till the date of his retirement 31-12-1997. He, therefore, contended that he is eligible to be appointed as president of the district forum in accordance with the Provisions of Section 10 (1) of the act. ( 6 ) WE have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners-sri h. r. vishwanath, learned government Advocate appearing for respondent l-sri a. Nagarajappa, learned senior counsel for the 2nd respondent-sri b. v. acharya and the learned counsel for respondent 3 -sri sampath anand shetty. ( 7 ) UNDER a government notification No. Ans 74 slf 98, dated 1-7-1998, copy of which is produced as Annexure-a, the first respondent in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 10 (1) of the act appointed the 2nd respondent as president of district forum of Bangalore rural district, Bangalore, and respondent 3 as president of district forum of karwar district. The said appointments of respondents 2 and 3 are now challenged by the petitioners in the present proceedings on the ground that they were not qualified to be appointed as district judges according to the criteria laid down under Article 233 (2) of the Constitution and, therefore, they are ineligible to be appointed to the post of president of district forum. It is contended by the learned courisel for the petitioners that respondents 2 and 3 are not qualified to be appointed as district judges since they were not practicing as advocates till the date of their appointment as presidents of consumer forum under the above said notification dated 1-7-1998 and since they were in service of the state. It is further contended by him that they were also ineligible to be appointed as presidents of district forum since they have retired from service and since they have never worked as district judges before their retirement from service in the state. But the learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 repelled these contentions and submitted that respondents 2 and 3 were qualified to be appointed as presidents of district forum by virtue of the fact that they have satisfied therequirement of having completed 7 years of practice as Advocate before joining service in the state and not being in-service of state or union by the date of their appointment to the present post. They further contended that respondents 2 and 3 also satisfied the age requirement prescribed under Section 10 (2) of the act which is a condition attached to the duration of the office. ( 8 ) TO appreciate the rival contentions, we find it necessary to refer to the Provisions of Section 10 (1) of the act which are as follows. "10. Composition of the district forum. (1) each district forum shall consist of. (a) a person who is, or has been, or is qualified to be a district judge to be nominated by the state government, to be its president; (b) a person of eminence in the field of education, trade or commerce; (c) a lady social worker. "10. Composition of the district forum. (1) each district forum shall consist of. (a) a person who is, or has been, or is qualified to be a district judge to be nominated by the state government, to be its president; (b) a person of eminence in the field of education, trade or commerce; (c) a lady social worker. (2) every member of the district forum shall hold office for a term of five years or upto the age of 65 years, whichever is earlier, and shall not be eligible for re-appointment; provided that a member may resign his office in writing under his hand addressed to the state government and on such resignation being accepted, his office shall become vacant and may be filled by appointment of a person possessing any of the qualifications mentioned in sub-section (1) in relation to "the category of the member who has resigned. (3) the salary or honorarium and other allowance payable to, and the other terms and conditions of service of the members of the district forum shall be such as may be prescribed by the state government. (1-a) every appointment under sub-section (1) shall be made by the state government on the recommendations of a selection committee consisting of the following namely. (i) the president of the state commission - chairman; (ii) secretary, law department of the state - membter; (iii) secretary-in-charge of the department dealing with consumer affairs in the state - member". thus, it is seen from the Provisions of Section 10 (lxa) of the act that a person who is qualified to be a district judge can be appointed as president of the district forum by the state government on the recommendation of the selection committee and it is not necessary that the person to be appointed as the president of the district forum must have worked as district judge. So, we find no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that because respondents 2 and 3 have never worked as district judges they are not eligible to be appointed as president of district forum. Qualification of a person to be appointed as district judge is to be ascertained from the Provisions of Article 233 of the constitution. The said provision reads as follow :"article 233. Qualification of a person to be appointed as district judge is to be ascertained from the Provisions of Article 233 of the constitution. The said provision reads as follow :"article 233. (1) appointment of persons to be, and the posting and promotion of district judges in any state shall be made by the governor of the state in consultation with the high court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such state. (2) a person not already in the service of the union or of the state shall only be eligible to be appointed a district judge if he has been for not less than seven years an Advocate or a pleader and is recommended by the high court for appointment". Article 233 (1) governs the appointment of persons who are already in state judicial service on promotion to the cadre of district judges. Article 233 (2) prescribes the qualification for appointment of others who are not already in the service of the union or state. Under the said provision, the only qualification prescribed for a person to be eligible to bo appointed as district judge is that he has been for not less than 7 years as an Advocate or a pleader and is recommended by the high court for appointment. The apex court has interpreted the words if he has been an advocate' as indicating that the state of being has existed and may be, but not necessarily, continuing in the decision of state of Assam v Horizon union. Relying upon the above decision of the supreme court, a decision in chandra Mohan v State of Uttar Pradesh and others, it was held that "according to Article 233 a person who is not already in the service is eligible only if he has been an Advocate or a pleader of at least seven years standing and is recommended by the high court. The expression "has been" in the phrase "if he has not been for not less than seven years an Advocate or a pleader* indicates that lite state of being has existed and may be (but not necessarily is) continuing. Clause (2) of Article 233 does not restrict the field of eligibility to only such advocates or pleaders who are actively practicing at the date of their appointment. Consequently, the person if appointed as district judge need not be continuing as an Advocate at the time of appointment. Clause (2) of Article 233 does not restrict the field of eligibility to only such advocates or pleaders who are actively practicing at the date of their appointment. Consequently, the person if appointed as district judge need not be continuing as an Advocate at the time of appointment. Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court which is followed in the above decisions, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that because respondents 2 and 3 were not practicing as advocates by the date of their appointment to the post of president of district forums they are not eligible for the said appointment cannot be countenanced. Since respondents 2 and 3 were not in any service of state or union by the date of their appointments to the said post of the president of district forums, the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that they being in state service in different cadres prior to their retirement they are not eligible to be appointed to the said post, cannot be accepted. Article 233 (2) of the Constitution makes it clear that if a person is not in service of state or union by the date of his appointment as district judge is qualified to be appointed to the said post provided he had practiced as an Advocate at the bar for not less than seven years. Since respondents 2 and 3 have satisfied the said requirements they were qualified to be appointed as district judges and consequently became eligible to be appointed to the post of presidents of district forum under the Provisions of Section 10 of the act. Even the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that since respondents 2 and 3 have already attained the age of superannuation by the date of their appointment to the post of the president of the consumer forum, they are ineligible to be appointed to the said post is also without any merit for the simple reason that the prescription as to age is not a qualification to hold the office of a district judge under Article 233 (2) of the constitution. It is only a condition attached to the duration of the office. It is only a condition attached to the duration of the office. According to the Provisions of Section 10 (2) of the Act, every member of the district forum shall hold office for a term of 5 years or upto the age of 65 years, whichever is earlier, and shall not be eligible for reappointment. Thus, the above said provision prescribing the age limit of 65 years to hold the post of the president of the consumer forum is only a condition attached to the duration of office of the president of the district forum. It is not the case of the petitioners that respondents 2 and 3 have not fulfilled the said requirement as to age prescribed under Section 10 (2) of the act. As admittedly, the respondents 2 and 3 were only 59 years old by the date of their appointment to the office of the president of the district forum they became eligible to be appointed to the said post and to continue in service for a term of 5 years as provided under Section 10 (2) of the act. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that respondents 2 and 3 are not qualified to be appointed as district judges since that they were not within the age limit prescribed by the state to be considered for the said appointment as district judge, is without any merit since the prescription as to age is not a qualification to the office of a district judge under Article 233 (2) of the constitution. A similar question, came up for consideration before the apex court in the case of atlas cycle industries limited, Sonepat v Their Workmen. A question arose in the said decision as to whether one Shri A. N. gujral was not qualified so be appointed as a member of the industrial tribunal on August 29, 1953 by a reason of the fact that he was over sixty years of age. It was held that the prescription as to age in Article 217 (1) of the Constitution 's not a qualification to the office of a judge under Article 217 (2 ). It is a condition attached to the duration of the office. It was held that the prescription as to age in Article 217 (1) of the Constitution 's not a qualification to the office of a judge under Article 217 (2 ). It is a condition attached to the duration of the office. In para 9 of the said decision, it is observed as follows :"we agree that there is implicity in Article 217 (1) a prohibition against appointment as a judge of a person who has attained the age of sixty years. But, in our view, that is in the nature of a condition governing the appointment to the office - not a qualification with reference to a person who is to be appointed thereto. There is manifest on the terms and on the scheme of the Article a clear distinction between requirements as to the age of a person who could be appointed as a judge and his fitness based on experience and ability to fill the office. Article 217 (1) deals with the former, and, in form, it has reference to the termination of the office and can therefore be properly read only as imposing, by implication, a restriction on making the appointment. In strong contrast to this is Article 217 (2) which expressly refers to the qualifications of the person to be appointed such as his having held a judicial post or having been an Advocate for a period of not less than ten years. We think that on a true construction of the Article the prescription as to age is a condition attached to the duration of the office and not a qualification for appointment to it. "so, following the above decision, we hold that the age limit prescribed under the rules framed by the state for the appointment to the post of a district judge is not a qualification to the office of district judge under Article 233 (2) of the constitution. We, therefore, find no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that by virtue of the fact that respondents 2 and 3 were not within the age limit prescribed under the relevant rules for the appointment to the office of the district judge, they are not qualified to be appointed to the post of the president of district forum. On the other hand, as it is found that they have fulfilled the age requirement prescribed under Section 10 (2) of the Act, we find that they are eligible to be appointed to the said post for a term of five years or upto the age of 65 years whichever is earlier. ( 9 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Satya Narain Singh v High Court of judicature at Allahabad , wherein it was held that. "a plain reading of both the clauses of Article 233 showed that while the second clause of Article 233 was applicable only to those who were not already in service, the first clause was applicable to those who were already in service. It is only in respect of the persons covered by the second clause that there is a requirement that a person shall be eligible for appointment as district judge if he has been an Advocate or a pleader for not less than 7 years. In other words, in the case of candidates who are not members of a judicial service they must have been advocates or pleaders for not less than 7 years and they have to be recommended by the high court before they may be appointed as district judges, while in the case of candidates who are members of a judicial service, the 7 years Rule has no application but there has to be consultation with the high court. Persons already in subordinate judicial service cannot be appointed as district judges overlooking the claims of all other seniors in the subordinate judiciary contrary to Article 14 and Article 16 of the constitution". relying upon the above decision, he argued that since respondents 2 and 3 were in service of the state prior to their appointment to the post of president of district forum, they are not qualified to be appointed to the said post under Article 233 (2) of the constitution. But the above decision does not support the said contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners since it is made clear hi the above decision that the second clause of Article 233 was applicable to all persons who were not already in subordinate judicial service. But the above decision does not support the said contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners since it is made clear hi the above decision that the second clause of Article 233 was applicable to all persons who were not already in subordinate judicial service. ( 10 ) RESPONDENT 2 has produced his enrolment certificate, copy of which is produced'as Annexure-r 1, issued by the Mysore state bar council to show that he was enrolled as an Advocate on 11-1-1971. He also produced a certificate issued by the additional civil judge and chief judicial magistrate, mandya, copy of which is produced as Annexure-r2, to show that he had practiced as an Advocate for not less than. 7 years from 11-1-1971 till 16-2-1978, the date on which the said certificate was issued. Respondent 3 has disclosed in para 4 of his objection statement that he had practiced as an Advocate from the date of his enrolment i. e. , 20-12-1967 till he joined service as assistant public prosecutor on 13-11-1975 for more than 7 years which fact has not been disputed by the petitioners. The fact that respondents 2 and 3 were appointed to the post of the president of district forum by the state government on recommendation of a selection committee consisting of chairman of the state consumer forum, secretary, law department and secretary, in-charge of the department dealing with consumer affairs in the state, is also not disputed by the petitioners. ( 11 ) FOR all the above reasons, we find that the appointments of respondents 2 and 3 to the post of president of consumer district forum under the impugned notification are valid and in accordance with law. ( 12 ) IN the result, this petition is dismissed. No costs. --- *** --- .