JUDGMENT B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.:- By this writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, two employees of Respondent ,No.1 State of Maharashtra working under Respondent No.2 - Controller of Legal Metrology have challenged the order of transfer dated 24-5-2005 contending the same to be violative of their fundamental right under Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and for a writ of mandamus requiring State Government to post them back to their original post i.e. as Assistant Controller of Legal Metrology. 2. On 7-10-2006, while issuing rule in the matter, by speaking order, this Court granted interim relief and stayed the operation and effect of this transfer order. This interim relief was questioned by present Respondents by filing Special Leave Petition No.677 of 2007 (Civil) before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the same has been disposed of on 6-2-2007 by the Hon'ble Apex Court, requesting this Court to decide Writ Petition on its own merit preferably before 30-4-2007. Writ Petition accordingly was placed before us on 12-4-2007 and on that date at the request of learned AGP it came to be adjourned to 17-4-2007 and thereafter to 214-2007. Hearing in the matter commenced on 21-4-2007. 3. We have heard Shri. Madkholkar, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Smt. Dangre, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondents. 4. Petitioner No.1 holds B.Sc. qualification while Petitioner No.2 is M.Sc. Both of them came to be appointed as Inspectors in Food and Civil Supplies Department from 213-1986 and in due course came to be promoted as Assistant Controller of Legal Metrology. They have been by impugned transfer order dated 24-5-2005 transferred as Registrars District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Chandrapur and Wardha respectively. Before these transfers, they were working at Dhule and Jalgaon respectively. 5. Shri. Madkholkar, learned counsel for the Petitioners has contended that minimum educational qualification required for the post of Registrar with District Consumer Redressal Forum is Degree in Law i.e. incumbent must be a Law Graduate. He contends that as both the Petitioners are admittedly not Law Graduates, they are not suitable and fit to be transferred as Registrars. In petition and also during arguments, he has pointed out that against the impugned transfer orders, the Petitioners initially moved Maharashtra, Administrative Tribunal and as Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal did not grant them any interim relief, they approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 1312 of 2006. In petition and also during arguments, he has pointed out that against the impugned transfer orders, the Petitioners initially moved Maharashtra, Administrative Tribunal and as Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal did not grant them any interim relief, they approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 1312 of 2006. The said writ petition was disposed of by this court by observing that it would be appropriate for the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal to consider the issue involved in Original Application No.387 of 2005 before it on merit. Accordingly, Original Applications filed by Petitioner No.1 vide Original Application No.386 of 2005 and by Petitioner No.2 vide Original Application No.387 of 2005 came to be considered by the Division Bench of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal on 4-5-2006 and the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal disposed of those Original Applications by observing that the present Petitioners had already sent representation dated 2-5-2006 to Slate Government for considering their transfer back, on the post of Assistant Controller, of legal Metrology. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal accordingly directed said representation to be considered in accordance with policy of State Government and disposed of the Original Applications. Shri. Madkholkar, learned counsel contends that thus in spite of direction to decide Original Applications on merit, the Original Applications have not been decided on merit. His further grievance is that though all other similar transfers of Assistant Controllers as Registrar of District Consumer Forum are stayed by the High court, only in case of present two Petitioners, State Government approached the Hon'ble Apex Court and got the matter expedited. He states that Chairman of District Forum and Ex Hon'ble Judge of this Court has on 31-3-2003 forwarded a communication to Chief Secretary of State of Maharashtra pointing out the urgent needs of State Consumer Forum and District Consumer Forum and he has also invited attention to orders passed by the Principal Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.1352 of 1999 wherein the learned Advocate General on behalf of the State Government has made some commitments. Our attention has been specifically invited to orders dated 7-11-2001 to point out that separate cadre for Consumer Courts was promised and assurance was extended that necessary steps would be taken with utmost speed. Our attention has been specifically invited to orders dated 7-11-2001 to point out that separate cadre for Consumer Courts was promised and assurance was extended that necessary steps would be taken with utmost speed. Note submitted by Advocate General particularly in relation to staff to be provided to Consumer Court is also pointed out to state that there were instructions to prepare separate cadre and the constitution of such separate cadre was going to take some time. In spite of this position, according to the learned counsel, the Petitioners and other employees of Food and Civil Supplies Department are being posted as Registrar though they are not qualified. He has stated that some of them could obtain interim orders and he has also invited attention to those interim orders. His emphasis is on the fact that it is an admitted position that such Registrar of District Consumer Forum must have LL.B. Degree as he has to deal with judicial matters. He has contended that as the Petitioners have no knowledge of law, they are likely to commit mistakes in the management and their service record will get spoiled in the process. 6. He has also pointed out affidavit in rejoinder filed on behalf of the Petitioners; particularly note dated 21-3-2003 forwarded by the President, District Consumer Forum for Maharashtra State to Chief Secretary about functioning of Consumer Forum and more particularly to the note, which is annexed by the learned President along with his communication. He points out that the learned President has stated that Bagla Committee constituted by National Commission has already submitted its recommendations about qualification and requirement & strength of staff etc. to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed State Government in the country to restructure staff pattern of Fora on the basis of said recommendation. Shri. Madkholkar, learned counsel states that in said note solemn commitment extended on behalf of the State Government by submitting a note on 7-11-2001 before this Court in pending PIL about constitution of separate cadre is also pointed out. He argues that though period of more than six years have expired, State Government has not taken any steps in this direction. He has also invited attention to Annexures I and II along with this note, which mentions proposed staff pattern separately for District Forum and State Forum. He argues that though period of more than six years have expired, State Government has not taken any steps in this direction. He has also invited attention to Annexures I and II along with this note, which mentions proposed staff pattern separately for District Forum and State Forum. He points out that posts of Registrar are contemplated in Court wing and also administrative wing and the Registrar has to possess Law degree as mentioned therein. He points out that so far as District Forum is concerned, there are two posts of Registrar i.e. Registrar (Legal) and Registrar (Administration) both with Law degree. He further invites attention to orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court at Aurangabad on 12-4-2006 in Writ Petition No.115 of 2006 in which while considering similar controversy, Division Bench has found that Government Pleader appearing before it accepted the requirement of Law Degree for the post of Registrar. Shri. Madkholkar, learned counsel contends that Government cannot back out of this statement made to Division Bench at Aurangabad. He has also invited attention to representations made by Pune Bar Association in this respect and he has also invited attention to 5th Report of State District Consumer Redressal Forum of Maharashtra State in which the post of Registrar with qualification as mentioned above are reflected. He has invited attention to provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985, hereinafter referred to as "1985 Act" to point out functions and duties of Inspectors and Assistant Controllers. He contends that functions and duties of Registrar of District Forum and these duties are entirely different. 7. The learned counsel for the Petitioners further submits that instead of creating a separate cadre for Consumer Fora, State Government has issued a circular on 25-7-2000 making it necessary for every Assistant Controller of Legal Metrology to work as Registrar, District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum by rotation. He contends that there is no substance in defence that as post of Assistant Controller is equated with Registrar, degree in Law in not essential for the post of Registrar. He points out that Registrar is also appointed as Executive Magistrate in the areas within their respective jurisdiction and invites attention to notification dated 4-3-2005 for said purpose. He contends that there is no substance in defence that as post of Assistant Controller is equated with Registrar, degree in Law in not essential for the post of Registrar. He points out that Registrar is also appointed as Executive Magistrate in the areas within their respective jurisdiction and invites attention to notification dated 4-3-2005 for said purpose. According to him, return of Respondents No.1 and 2 ignores the undertaking given to High Court in its paragraph 2 and at the same time, in paragraph 3(B) stand has been taken that said undertaking has been substantially complied with. He also points out that the arrangement made is pointed out to be temporary arrangement but it is in contradiction of undertaking given to Hon'ble Apex Court by State Government. He invites attention to its paragraph 5 to point out that Government Resolution dated 15-7-2000 has been issued to see that Assistant Controller is not required to work permanently on the post of Registrar, District Forum. He argues that this is the position obtaining after six years of undertaking given to High Court and still in paragraph 13 of return, lame excuses like requirement of long time, adverse effect on functioning excuses District Forum etc. are being pointed out. Return does not explain statement made by Government Pleader before Aurangabad Bench or undertaking given by State Government to Hon'ble Apex Court about implementation of Bagla Committee. He states that statement of Government Pleader cannot be withdrawn by State and in support places reliance upon judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of BSNL Vs. Subash Chandra Kanchan, reported at (2006) 8 SCC 279. He has also invited attention to judgment of Queens Bench in the case of Royal Aquarium Vs. Parkinson reported at 1892 Q.B. 513 to state that an Administrative Officer is not expected to discharge judicial functions. 8. Learned AGP has invited attention to the prayers made in Writ Petition to point out the nature of dispute raised and how material prayers and challenges are not raised in it. Attention is also invited to transfer order dated 24-5-2005 challenged by the Petitioners to point out how by rotation, Government is asking all Assistant Controllers to work on the post of Registrar. Attention is invited to four categories as envisaged therein. Attention is also invited to transfer order dated 24-5-2005 challenged by the Petitioners to point out how by rotation, Government is asking all Assistant Controllers to work on the post of Registrar. Attention is invited to four categories as envisaged therein. Thereafter Government Resolution dated 28-3-1994 has been pointed out to state how efforts have been made by Government to create the posts earlier in the cadre of Tahsildar of Revenue Department and how post of the Deputy Controller of, Legal Metrology has been equated with the post of Registrar in State Consumer Commission and how post of Assistant Controller of Legal Metrology is equated with the post of Registrar in District Forum. The post of Registrar have been treated as temporary additions to the equivalent posts existing in the cadre of Revenue and Forest department or the office of Supply Commissioner. Subsequent Government Resolution dated 16-1-1995 is also pointed out to explain how all post created for implementation of Consumer Protection Act have been decided to be transferred to establishment of Legal Metrology Organisation. It is stated that services of person working On existing post in the offices of Consumer Forum have been continued and treated as on transfer by deputation and Legal Metrology Organisation has to deal with establishment matters of posts thus transferred to it in manner similar to the posts on its establishment. It is pointed out that on 15th July, 2000 norms for filling up post of Registrar by transfer are prescribed by Government and according to it every Assistant Controller has to work at least once on the post of District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum and he is to work consecutively for a period of three years as Registrar and all Assistant Controllers are to be rotated on said post as per roster prepared for said purpose. 9. It is further argued that Bench at Aurangabad has not delivered any judgment in the matter and when matter was taken up, no lis was in existence because transfer order issued to petitioner Seema therein was already withdrawn. It is further contended that there is no decision about validity or otherwise of said transfer order and no statement has been made by Government Pleader. Attention is invited to affidavit filed by Deputy Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies Department that there are no recruitment rules framed till now for the post of Registrar in District Consumer Forum. It is further contended that there is no decision about validity or otherwise of said transfer order and no statement has been made by Government Pleader. Attention is invited to affidavit filed by Deputy Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies Department that there are no recruitment rules framed till now for the post of Registrar in District Consumer Forum. It is stated in said affidavit that the observations of Aurangabad Bench are not binding on State Government and even if it is accepted that said Government Pleader agreed that post warranted Law graduate as incumbent, still the same has no legal effect upon powers of State in the matter. Attention is also invited to Rule 9, sub rule D of Maharashtra Law Officers Appointment and Service Rules, 1984, to state that such statement has got no effect and is not binding on Government. Attention is invited to judgment in the case of Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala, reported at (1999)4 SCC 195 , to state how Hon'ble Apex Court has held that statement made by Advocate General on behalf of State Government binds it and reasons there for From very same ruling it is also pointed out as to how Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with similar statement made by Government Pleader. To point out distinction between obiter and ratio of judgment and what is binding on subordinate courts, our attention has been invited to the judgment in the case of Divisional Controller, KSRTC Vs. Mahadeva Shetty, reported at (2003)7 SCC 197 , paragraph 19 and State of Haryana Vs. Ranbir, reported at (2006)5 SCC 167 : [2006 ALL MR (Cri) 1826 (S.C.)], paragraph 12 and in the case of Rekha Mukherjee Vs. Ashis Kumar Das & Ors. reported at (2005)3 SCC 427 , paragraph 29. 10. Our attention has been invited even to High Court judgment in which statement of Advocate General has been recorded including the note of Advocate General to urge that nowhere any undertaking of State Government has been recorded. It is further stated that report of Bagla Committee is prepared by National Commission and State Government has already sent reply to learned President of State Commission that it is not accepting and cannot accept said report. Learned AGP contents that nowhere State Government accepted that Law degree shall be essential qualification for Registrar working in District Forum. It is further stated that report of Bagla Committee is prepared by National Commission and State Government has already sent reply to learned President of State Commission that it is not accepting and cannot accept said report. Learned AGP contents that nowhere State Government accepted that Law degree shall be essential qualification for Registrar working in District Forum. It is argued that it is only recommendation of learned President of State Consumer Forum and it does not create any legally enforceable right in present Petitioners. She argues that Government is trying its best to provide separate cadre and accordingly three posts of Registrar (Legal) have been created for State Consumer Forum with separate cadre in the scale of 10650-15000 and Law graduates have been appointed on these three posts. However, it has been done by the government on its own and it is not implementation and/or acceptance of report of Bagla Committee. The notification dated 16-2-2000 issued by Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department has been pointed out to state that duties of Registrar do not require Law degree at all. It is stated that even in constitution of the State Forum as per Consumer Protection Act only its Chairman has to possess Law degree while remaining 2 members need not possess such qualification in Law at all. It is argued that service conditions of the Petitioners have not undergone any change in any way and they are put to no prejudice. It is argued that Inspector and Assistant Controller has to undergo a basic training course conducted by Government of India and in it basic law is taught to him. It is further argued that Inspector is also required to function as Public Prosecutor and as Inspector is in due course promoted as Assistant Controller, they also have basic knowledge of Law. It is argued that such basic knowledge is not even required because Registrar of District Forum has to perform only administrative functions. In this background it is argued that as there are no Recruitment Rules occupying the field, State Government can issue necessary instructions to fill in gaps and support is taken form judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Chandra Mohan Nigam, reported at (1977)4 SCC 345 , paragraph 26 and 27. In this background it is argued that as there are no Recruitment Rules occupying the field, State Government can issue necessary instructions to fill in gaps and support is taken form judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Chandra Mohan Nigam, reported at (1977)4 SCC 345 , paragraph 26 and 27. It is further stated that equivalence effected by State Government has not been challenged by the Petitioners but this Court cannot undertake judicial scrutiny in this province. Learned AGP relies upon the judgment in the case of Union of India & Ors Vs. N.Y. Apte & Ors. reported at (1998)6 SCC 741 , paragraph 9 and in Post Graduate Institute Vs. J.B. Dilawari, reported at (1988) (Supp.) SCC 355, paragraphs 9 and 10. She further states that if the Petitions are allowed, several Assistant Controllers will be rendered surplus and recruitment process to post of Registrar in District Consumer Forum will be required to be initiated after framing rules, issuing advertisement and completing the process of selection. She states this will take long period and entire working of District Consumer Fora will be jeopardised. She points out that there are no complaints about working of the Petitioners or their counterparts as Registrars at District Forum. Learned AGP therefore, prays for dismissal of writ petition. 11. Advocate Madkholkar in rejoinder states that there are already Rules framed which regulate service conditions of the Petitioners and he states the same to be provisions of Maharashtra Civil Service Rules. He further states that Rules prescribe qualifications for the post of Inspector and even for post of Assistant Controller, and Law degree is not required. He invites attention to Rule 26 in this respect framed under Section 76 of 1985 Act. He further states that equivalence sought to be achieved by Government Resolution dated 28-3-1994 is illegal because it equates two posts only on the strength of their same pay scale. By placing reliance upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.I. Rooplal Vs. Lt. Governor, Delhi, reported at AIR 2000 SC 594 , particularly paragraph 17 he states that four norms are required to be satisfied before declaring such equivalence and the pay scale is the last norm of least importance. By placing reliance upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.I. Rooplal Vs. Lt. Governor, Delhi, reported at AIR 2000 SC 594 , particularly paragraph 17 he states that four norms are required to be satisfied before declaring such equivalence and the pay scale is the last norm of least importance. He further argues that for other staff, the transfer to District Forum is treated as deputation while Petitioners are sent as Registrars without even asking for their consent. He states that note submitted by Advocate General in W.P. 1352 of 1999 is after Bagla Committee report and with a view to implement it. He also states that before District Forum litigation is of civil nature i.e. relating to law of tort and no such law is taught in basic training course. 12. It is necessary to find out whether the Petitioners are right in contending that Law Degree is an essential qualification prescribed for the post of Registrar of District Forums. The Petitioners have invited attention to orders of Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1352 of 1999 which appeared to be reported at 2002 CTJ 3. As per these orders, on 7-11-2001, the High Court has considered the note submitted by the learned Advocate General on behalf of State Government in which details of progress made since order dated 24-10-2001 were pointed out. This Court has also briefly mentioned contents of said note and as regards staff, this Court has noticed that the Chief Secretary had instructed that separate cadre be prepared for Consumer Court. It has also been recorded that all necessary steps are being taken and within some time necessary funds would be made available and thereafter State Forum would be able to shift to its own premises. This Court has directed the State Government to take all necessary and proper actions with utmost speed and matter was directed to be listed on 7-1-2002. The note submitted by the Advocate General speaks of Stenographers, Car for President of State Commission, office appliances, furniture and staff. About staff, the note states that Chief Secretary had instructed that the separate cadre be prepared for Consumer Court and constitution of said cadre would take some time but every effort would be made to do it as fast as possible. About staff, the note states that Chief Secretary had instructed that the separate cadre be prepared for Consumer Court and constitution of said cadre would take some time but every effort would be made to do it as fast as possible. The progress in the matter after 7-1-2002 is not made available to us and fate of Writ Petition No. 1352 of 1999 is also not known. However, it appears from orders placed on record for our consideration that the issue of qualifications of staff constituting such separate cadre has not been gone into by this Court in these orders. There is nothing to show that this Court in any way found or observed that Law Degree should be an essential qualification for Registrar of District Forums. The post of Registrar does not find mention in these orders. 13. The Petitioners have also invited attention to orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various matters particularly Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.6928 of 1999. It appears that these orders are passed in several other matters as mentioned and in any case State of Maharashtra has appeared in said matter through its Advocate. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has noticed that there were 47 vacancies in the office of Members of District Forum at Uttar Pradesh. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further noticed that National Consumer Forum has to exercise administrative control over 34 State Commissions and 560 District Forums through out the country. Thus Hon. Supreme Court has considered issue for whole country and as, there has to be uniformity in structure of all Fora in different States and Districts, the State of Maharashtra cannot avoid to implement such directions. But in this order of Hon'ble Apex Court, there is no mention of the post of Registrar for District Forum and in any case qualifications required for said post. It, therefore, appears that even the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not made any observations or has not issued any directions in this respect. 14. The Petitioners have pointed out communication dated 21-3-2003 forwarded by the President of State Consumer Forum Justice Shri. M.S. Rane to the Chief Secretary and in it there is reference to discussion and deliberations held at Delhi on 15th and 16th of March, 2003. 14. The Petitioners have pointed out communication dated 21-3-2003 forwarded by the President of State Consumer Forum Justice Shri. M.S. Rane to the Chief Secretary and in it there is reference to discussion and deliberations held at Delhi on 15th and 16th of March, 2003. The learned President has stated that on the basis of said discussion and feed back received from each forum in State, he has prepared a note and in that note there is consideration of staffing pattern for State Commission and each District Forum. In this there is a reference to report of Bagla Committee constituted by National Commission and it is mentioned that said Committee has already submitted its recommendation about staff to Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed the State Governments in the country to restructure the staff pattern of Fora on the basis of its recommendations. It is also mentioned that State Government has through its Chief Secretary made solemn commitment by submitting its note on 7-11-2001 before the High Court in pending PIL suggesting creation of separate cadre. It is obvious that said reference is to Writ Petition No.1352 of 1999 already mentioned above. It is, therefore, again clear that this note nowhere states that State Government accepted Law degree as qualification for Registrar. There are annexures along with this note and Annexures I & II show pattern proposed respectively for State Commission and District Forum. The learned President has in his Note stated that the staff pattern as discussed and agreed in the meeting or conference for State Commission, each District Forum and for proposed Circuit Benches of the State Commission at Nagpur are as mentioned in Annexures I, II & III. He has asked for sanctioning said pattern and staff immediately. So far as Annexure III is concerned, it speaks of staff pattern for Circuit Bench of State Commission at Nagpur and Annexure I is staffing pattern for State Commission. In State Commission one post of Registrar for Court wing and one post of Registrar for Administrative wing are mentioned with qualification of Law graduation. In Annexure III, one post of Additional Registrar with Law graduation is mentioned for Circuit Bench at Nagpur. In Annexure II in Administrative wing, two posts of Registrar are mentioned. In State Commission one post of Registrar for Court wing and one post of Registrar for Administrative wing are mentioned with qualification of Law graduation. In Annexure III, one post of Additional Registrar with Law graduation is mentioned for Circuit Bench at Nagpur. In Annexure II in Administrative wing, two posts of Registrar are mentioned. One post is shown as Registrar (Legal) while other post is shown as Registrar (Administration) and qualification for both is shown to be Law Graduate. However, there is nothing on record to show that this recommendation of learned President of State Forum is accepted by the State Government. 15. During arguments before us, learned AGP, upon instructions from the Under Secretary, who was present in the Court, has stated that the communication from the learned President of State Commission has been replied to by the State Government by expressly mentioning that it is not accepting the report of Bagla Committee. In this respect she has produced a note prepared by the department about actions taken in points raised in said communication by learned President. As against Point No.12, it has been mentioned that because of heavy financial burden, State Government was not in a position to accept the recommendations of Bagla Committee and this difficulty has been pointed by the State Government to Central Government in the meeting organized at National level on 9th and 10th February, 2002. It mentioned that if Central Government provided financial assistance then only State Government could be in position to implement the report of Bagla Committee. 16. In addition to this, the State Government has filed its reply before this Court on 28-9-2006 expressly mentioning therein that there are no Recruitment Rules in existence for the post of Registrar of District Consumer Forum. It has been pointed out that as per Government Resolution dated 28-3-1994, post of Assistant Controller of Legal Metrology has been equated with the post of Registrar of District Forum. 17. It is also necessary to note earlier Government Resolution dated 16-1-1995 by which the question of providing Consumer Court with regular staff/employees has been resolved and all posts created for implementation of Consumer Protection Act have been transferred to Legal Metrology organisation. The said department/organisation has been empowered to deal with establishment matters in respect of all the posts thus transferred. The said department/organisation has been empowered to deal with establishment matters in respect of all the posts thus transferred. On 15-7-2000, Government of Maharashtra in its department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection has issued circular for fixing norms for filling up posts of Registrar of District Consumer Forums. It is to be noted that all these circulars including the one dated 28-3-1994 are not in challenge in present petition. Even the order passed by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal on 4-52006 is not assailed in this writ petition. The copy of Original Application filed before Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal is not annexed along with the petition. The petitioners are employees working in Food and Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection department, which has taken out all above, mentioned Government Resolutions. It appears that the practice, which petitioners have challenged, is in vogue since at least 1994. It is in this background that the challenge in present writ petition needs to be considered. 18. Shri. Madkholkar, learned counsel has contended that it is not necessary for the petitioners to challenge these Government Resolutions because they are contrary to directions of Hon'ble Apex Court or undertaking given to High Court and also contrary to Constitution of India. However, no direction of Hon'ble Apex Court asking respondents to fix Degree in Law as qualification for Registrar of District Consumer Forum has been pointed out. Even in High Court orders, there is absolutely no such discussion or whisper. The learned counsel has during hearing produced copy of report of Bagla Committee dated 14-1-2000. The Committee only recommends that post of Registrar of District Forum should be headed by Registrar who should be of rank of Superintendent in State Government and his duties will involve assisting the forum in judicial and administrative matters. The duties expected of him are also mentioned. However, again it has not stated that he must be possessing the particular qualification or Law degree. In the absence of this material on record, it is not possible for us to hold that the above, mentioned Government Resolutions are ipso facto void. The learned counsel for the petitioners has only pointed out the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No.l15 of 2006. In the absence of this material on record, it is not possible for us to hold that the above, mentioned Government Resolutions are ipso facto void. The learned counsel for the petitioners has only pointed out the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No.l15 of 2006. Those observations are "so far as post of Registrar (Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum) is concerned, it is a post requiring legal qualification i.e. Graduation in Law. Fortunately for us, learned Government Pleader Shri. E.P. Sawant does not dispute this position. The Registrar (Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum) ought to have Law graduate and Engineering graduate may not be able to work there with adequate efficiency.” The perusal of judgment shows that at the beginning itself, Division Bench noticed that grievance of the petitioner was not surviving. Therefore these observations have been made but then no directions on these lines have been issued to government. The Division Bench has observed that though it was not required to adjudicate upon issue, there was some error on the part of government in posting a Science Graduate in a place where Law graduate is required to function. The Division Bench has placed a suggestion on record that government should be careful in future to see that such persons are not posted on a post where they may prove misfit and continue to function merely because they are in need of job. It is, therefore, clear that the Aurangabad Division Bench has not considered the issue as is sought to be raised before us and Division Bench has also no occasion to find out whether degree in Law was an essential qualification for the post of Registrar. We are, therefore, not in a position to read these observations of Division Bench to mean that a qualification of degree in Law has been introduced by it for the post of Registrar of District forum. In view of this discussion, we do not find it necessary to look into various judgments on which learned AGP has placed reliance to point out distinction between obiter and ratio and what should be treated as binding precedent. 19. In the case of K.S. Rashid & Sons Vs. In view of this discussion, we do not find it necessary to look into various judgments on which learned AGP has placed reliance to point out distinction between obiter and ratio and what should be treated as binding precedent. 19. In the case of K.S. Rashid & Sons Vs. I.T.I. Commission, reported at AIR 1954 SC 207 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the issue of jurisdiction of Punjab High Court to issue writ of Investigation Commission in Delhi which was functioning under Section 5 of Taxation of Income-tax Act, 30 of 1947. We do not find anything in this judgment, which would help the present petitioners in this matter. 20. Dwarka Nath Vs. I.T. Officer, reported at AIR 1966 SC 81 , is relied upon to argue that an illegal or void Act need not be expressly challenged by the petitioners. However, as already noticed above, we do not find that the act of respondents in transferring the petitioners was in any way void or unconstitutional or illegal. In any case that issue was to be decided by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal as per law and final orders passed by it are not challenged before us. Said orders and rejection of relief to Petitioners as sought has thus attained finality. 21. The judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Haryana Co-operative Transport Ltd., reported at (1977) 1 SCC 271 , has been pointed out to state that situation there was identical. However, it is to be noted that in the said case a person working as UDC and Registrar to the Pensions Appeals Tribunal was subsequently appointed as Assistant Settlement Officer and he was holding clerical post. This person was then appointed as Presiding Officer of Labour Court and he delivered an award on 16-4-1966 which was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court by pointing out absence of necessary qualification in said person. The observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court are in this background and need to be understood accordingly. Before us it has not been demonstrated that law degree is requisite qualification for Registrar and hence this judgment has no application. 22. For the same reasons, we do not find that judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Syed T.A. Naqshbandi Vs. Before us it has not been demonstrated that law degree is requisite qualification for Registrar and hence this judgment has no application. 22. For the same reasons, we do not find that judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Syed T.A. Naqshbandi Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir, reported at (2003) 9 SCC 592 , has got any relevance on controversy which we are deciding. 23. Shri. Madkholkar, learned counsel has contended that the post of Assistant Controller Legal Metrology has been illegally equated with the post of Registrar, District Consumer Forum. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.I. Rooplal Vs. Ltd. Governor, Delhi (supra). In paragraph 17 there, the Hon'ble Apex Court has specified four factors which are relevant for considering whether the posts are equivalent or not. It has been further observed that the salary of the post is the last factor and of least importance and if earlier three criterion are fulfilled then even if salaries of two posts are different, that would not in any way make the post “not equivalent.” The three criterions are the nature and duties of post, responsibilities and powers exercised by officer holding said post and minimum qualifications, if any, prescribed for recruitment to the post. It is to be noted that persons recruited as Assistant Controller legal Metrology are being given the work of Registrar of District Consumer Forum and that has been done by issuing various resolutions already mentioned above. The said arrangement has not been challenged before us and the petitioner has not pointed out that because of such work as Registrar, any of their service conditions are adversely affected. No provision of law violated thereby has been pointed out. 24. The learned AGP has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. N.Y. Apte & Ors. (supra) particularly paragraph 9 to state that the matter of equation of post is entirely within the domain of rule making authority and unless the rule is wholly unreasonable and irrational, the Court will not interfere with the same. Post Graduate Institute Vs. Vs. N.Y. Apte & Ors. (supra) particularly paragraph 9 to state that the matter of equation of post is entirely within the domain of rule making authority and unless the rule is wholly unreasonable and irrational, the Court will not interfere with the same. Post Graduate Institute Vs. J.B. Dilawari (supra) has been relied upon by her to state that the process of prescribing qualifications for any post is the work of experts and courts should be slow to impose its opinion in the matter. Mallikarjuna Rao Vs. State of A.P., reported at (1990) 2 SCC 707 , is pointed out to state that the Court should not issue directions to executive in this respect as fixing of qualifications is within the domain of Executive under the Constitution. 25. As we have already observed above, it has not been shown to us that by any Government Resolution or any Rule or by any direction of Court, Law degree has been made an essential qualification for an incumbent working as Registrar of District forum. The government has come up with specific stand that it has not accepted the report of Bagla Committee. It is no doubt true that the Hon'ble Apex Court has issued certain directions to State Governments in the matter of Constitution and functioning of Consumer forums, still the directions are not in relation to qualification for the post of Registrar. In the absence of such binding direction, when Government has in meeting held on 9th and 10th February, 2002 pointed out to Union of India its inability to implement report of Bagla Committee, the direction to implement said report or to appoint only law graduates as Registrar of District Forums cannot be issued in present writ petition. Such an exercise clearly falls beyond the scope of present writ petition. 26. The learned AGP has also pointed out judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala (supra) particularly paragraph 19 to show how the Hon'ble Apex Court has found that statement made by Advocate General on behalf of the Government can be accepted and given importance and why concession made by Government Pleader in trial Court cannot be accepted. Shri. Madkholkar, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment in the case of BSNL Vs. Shri. Madkholkar, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment in the case of BSNL Vs. Subash Chandra Kanchan (supra) to contend that when statement made by the learned Government Pleader before Aurangabad Division Bench is not contrary to law, it cannot be allowed to be withdrawn and Government cannot be permitted to resile from it. We have already discussed the issue above and we find that there is no statement made by the Government or Government Pleader before the Division Bench at Aurangabad which has been accepted by said Division Bench. 27. Similarly, Shri. Madkholkar, learned counsel for the petitioners as also Smt. Dangre, learned AGP for the respondents have invited our attention to provisions of Consumer Protection Act, Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985, to point out duties which the Registrar of District Consumer Forum and an Inspector working in Food and Civil Supplies department are required to discharge. The learned AGP contends that duties of Registrar of District Consumer Forum are only administrative and he need not possess Law degree. In the absence of express challenge to the equivalence made, we find that this issue cannot be gone into in present writ petition. The Petitioners ought to have challenged said issue before administrative tribunal and thereafter the orders passed on their Original Application by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in writ petition under Art.226 and also should have produced memo of Original Application filed by them in MAT here so as to enable this Court to appreciate challenges raised by them before Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. In any case, Petitioners have not even tried to compare duties of Assistant Controller of Legal Metrology with duties of Registrar of District Forum. Further in so far as present Writ Petition is concerned. We have already stated above the petition proceeds on the basis that Law degree is essential for the incumbent on the post of Registrar of District Forum. 28. Thus, the arguments that post of Registrar has to be filled up only by appointing a person holding Law degree cannot be accepted because there is no statutory provision requiring it and in absence of any such provision, it is not for this Court to prescribe any such qualification. 28. Thus, the arguments that post of Registrar has to be filled up only by appointing a person holding Law degree cannot be accepted because there is no statutory provision requiring it and in absence of any such provision, it is not for this Court to prescribe any such qualification. Neither the Hon'ble Apex Court nor the Division Bench of this Court have laid down that such post of Registrar of District Consumer disputes Redressal Forum should be filled in by Law graduate only. Till the recommendations made by the learned President of State Consumer Commission are accepted by State Government and Report of Bagla Committee is implemented, the action of government in transferring the Assistant Controller of Legal Metrology to the post of Registrar cannot be faulted with only on the ground that the incumbent does not possess Law degree. Moreover as observed above, the decision of State Government by which policy in this respect has been laid down is not subject matter of challenge in present writ petition.. 29. In these circumstances, we do not find any merit in writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there be no order as to costs. At this stage Shri. Gupta, Advocate holding for Shri. Madkholkar, learned counsel for the petitioners states that interim order operating in the matter should be continued for a period of six weeks from today so as to enable the petitioners to approach the Hon'ble Apex Court. The request is strongly opposed by the learned AGP who states that the Government is facing problem in providing appropriate staff for district Consumer Forum. However, since the interim order is operating in favour of the petitioners, the same is continued for a period of six weeks and thereafter it shall cease to operate automatically. Petition dismissed.