Judgment : K. Sreedhar Rao, Ag. CJ. 1. A notification was issued calling for applications to fill up the posts of President of the District Consumer Redressal Forums of Kodagu, Kolar, Hassan and Bidar districts. Petitioner No.1 applied for the districts of Hassan and Kodagu, petitioner No.2 applied for the districts of Kolar, Kodagu, Hassan and Bidar, and petitioner No.3 applied for the districts of Kodagu and Hussan. When the process of selection was pending, respondent No.2 effected transfers of the Presidents of the District Consumer Redressal Forums at Koppal, Dharwad and Bellary districts (respondent Nos.4 to 6 respectively) to Kolar, Hassan and Kodagu districts. In view of the said transfers, the petitioners submit that the process of selection to the post of President of District Forums of Kolar, Hassan and Kodagu districts is rendered infructuous. The transfers effected are mala fide and illegal and hence seek quashing of the order of transfers issued vide Annexure-E dated 23.04.2012. 2. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 support the order of transfers contend that the request of respondent Nos.4 to 6 were pending since October 2010. The Committee under Section 10(1-A) was not convened by the Chairman and therefore, respondent No.2, who is one of the members of the Committee, has effected the transfers. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that the transfers are effected in an illegal and mala fide manner. There is no element of public interest involved and that the transfers are not preceded by the recommendation of the Committee as required under Section 10(1-A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Respondent No.3 has also produced material at Annexures-R.13 and R.15, which are the letters issued by the Ex-MLA of Sekaleshpura, Hassan district and the Deputy Secretary to the Chief Minister respectively, recommending transfer of Respondent No.6 –Prakash Kumar from Bellary to Kodugu district. He submits that the transfers effected by respondent No.2 are arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, under political pressure. 4. The Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan and others vs Anand Prakash Solanki ({2003}7 SCC 403) has made the following observations at paragraphs 7, 8, 9 and 13; “7. Each District Forum in a State is constituted under Section 10 of the Act which reads as under: “10. 4. The Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan and others vs Anand Prakash Solanki ({2003}7 SCC 403) has made the following observations at paragraphs 7, 8, 9 and 13; “7. Each District Forum in a State is constituted under Section 10 of the Act which reads as under: “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, who shall be its President; (b) two other members, who shall be persons of ability, integrity and standing, and have adequate knowledge or experience of, or have shown capacity in dealing with, problems relating to economics, law, commerce, accountancy, industry, public affairs or administration, one of whom shall be a woman. (1-A) Every appointment under sub-section (1) shall be made by the State Government on the recommendation of a selection committee consisting of the following, namely- (i) the President of the State Commission – Chairman, (ii) Secretary, Law Department of the State – Member, (iii) Secretary, in charge of the Department dealing with consumer affairs in the State – Member. (2) Every member of the District Forum shall hold office for a term of five years or up to the age of 65 years, whichever is earlier, and shall not be eligible for reappointment: 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 the 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 allowances 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.” It is clear from a bare reading of the above said statutory provisions that though a District Forum is to be constituted and its President and members are to be appointed by the State Government, the power to appoint is exercisable only on the recommendation of a Selection Committee consisting of the President of the State Commission and two Secretaries of the State as provided by sub-Section (1-A) of Section 10. The concept of appointment by transfer is not unknown to service jurisprudence. The concept of appointment by transfer is not unknown to service jurisprudence. A power to appoint includes a power to make an appointment, and so also a power to make an appointment includes a power to make an appointment, includes a power to make an appointment by transfer, subject to satisfying the requirements of Section 10 of the Act. The expression “appointment” takes in appointment by direct recruitment, appointment by promotion and appointment by transfer. (See Indra Sawhney v. Union of India {1992} Supp. (3) SCC 217, para 827, per Jeevan Reddy, J.). In K. Narayanan v. State of Karnataka {1994} Supp (1) SCC 44, the term “recruitment” came up for the consideration of this Court and it was held that it is a comprehensive term which includes any method provided for inducting a person in public service such as appointment, selection, promotion and deputation which are all well-known methods of recruitment and even appointment by transfer is not unknown. In Union of India v. A.R. Shinde {1987}2 SCC 1, this Court noticed three modes of making recruitment, i.e. promotion, deputation and direct requirement and at the same time held that an appointment by transfer too was unexceptionable. 8. It cannot be lost sight of that the National Commission, State Commissions and District Fora have all been constituted to exercise jurisdiction over such grievances of the aggrieved persons which were earlier available to be raised before the conventional courts established under the Constitution and/or the laws. Inasmuch as the persons appointed to discharge functions under the Act at whatever level exercise judicial powers and are expected to function juristically consistently with the procedure as laid down by the Act or the Rules framed there under, the very nature of the functions discharged by them needs them to be isulated from the control of, or interference by the executive. So far as the District Fora are concerned, the purpose is sought to be achieved by sub-section (1-A) of Section 10, as also by Section 24-B of the Act. Every appointment under sub-section (1) of Section 10, though made by the State Government, is dependent on the recommendation of a Selection Committee which is headed by the President of the State Commission who is, or has been, a Judge of a High Court. Every appointment under sub-section (1) of Section 10, though made by the State Government, is dependent on the recommendation of a Selection Committee which is headed by the President of the State Commission who is, or has been, a Judge of a High Court. The administrative control over all the District Fora within the State has been vested in the State Commission in all the matters contemplated by clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of sub-Section (1) of Section 24-B. The power conferred on the National Commission by clause (iii) of sub-Section (1), exercisable by the National Commission over the State Commissions and District Fora, read mutatis mutandis confers the same power on the State Commission qua District Fora within the State by virtue of sub-Section (2). Keeping in view the purpose sought to be achieved by these provisions, Section 24-B has to be so constructed as to spell out administrative control in favour of the National Commission over all the State Commissions and District Fora and in favour of the State Commission over all the District Fora within its jurisdiction, whenever there is any doubt. In other words, clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) above said have to be liberally and widely interpreted. 9. It is true that there is no cadre as such of the Presidents and the members of the District Fora contemplated by the Act and this is the principal consideration which has prevailed with the High Court for holding that the President and members of District Fora are not liable to be transferred inasmuch as there is no single cadre of such persons in the State. We cannot subscribe to that view. The existence of one cadre is not essential and is not the sine qua non to make available the power of transfer. As District Fora, more than one, are constituted within the State, there is nothing wrong in the President or members of one District Forum being appointed by transfer to another District Forum, subject to the requirement of sub-Section (1-A) of Section 10 being satisfied. Such appointment by transfer shall be made by the State Government but only on the recommendation of the Committee consisting of the President of the State Commission and two Secretaries i.e. the Committee composed as per sub-section (1-A) of Section 10. Such appointment by transfer cannot be a frequent or routine feature. Such appointment by transfer shall be made by the State Government but only on the recommendation of the Committee consisting of the President of the State Commission and two Secretaries i.e. the Committee composed as per sub-section (1-A) of Section 10. Such appointment by transfer cannot be a frequent or routine feature. The power is there but is meant to be exercised sparingly and only in public interest or in such exigencies of administration as would satisfy the purpose of constituting the District Forum. The broader concept of “transfer” is a change of the place of employment within an organization. Transfer is an incidence of public service and the power to transfer is available to be exercised by the employer unless an express bar or restraint on the exercise of such power can be spelt out. The power, like all other administrative powers, has to be exercised bona fide. 13. The scheme of the Act does not prohibit or exclude the exercise of power to transfer the President or members from one District Forum to another District Forum within the State. Power to transfer vests in the State Government as employer and is available to be exercised on the recommendation of the Committee contemplated by sub-Section (1-A) of Section 10 of the Act. The view to the contrary taken by the High Court cannot be countenanced.” 5. The law laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision cited above makes the position explicitly clear that even in the absence of express provision for transfer of President of a District Forum from one place to another place, the implication of the provisions of Section 10(1-A) empowers the Government to effect transfer only on the recommendation of the Committee constituted under Section 10(1-A) of the Act. The broad guidelines for effecting transfers are also laid down and essentially the transfers are to be effected only in public interest and not for any extraneous consideration. 6. In the present case, we evidently notice that a pressure is sought to be built up by respondent No.6 to effect his transfer from Bellary to Kodagu by getting recommendation letters from political functionaries. The conduct of respondent No.6 his highly depreciable so also the conduct of respondent No.2 in effecting transfer of respondent Nos.4 to 6 bypassing the procedure under Section 10(1-A) is highly depleted. The conduct of respondent No.6 his highly depreciable so also the conduct of respondent No.2 in effecting transfer of respondent Nos.4 to 6 bypassing the procedure under Section 10(1-A) is highly depleted. It is strenuously argued by the learned Advocate General that the request for transfer of Respondent Nos.4 to 6 was pending for several months and that the Chairman did not convene a meeting to consider the said request. Therefore, in the context of the extreme situation, respondent No.2 has effected the transfers. The explanation sought to be given by learned Advocate General to justify the conduct of respondent No.2 does not appear to be convincing. In the first place, unlike appointments and promotions, there is no legal right to seek consideration of the request for transfer. If the application for transfer is not considered or taken up for consideration, it is deemed to have been rejected. However, in case of promotions and appointments, a person has the right to be considered, but that is not the proposition of law in respect of a request for transfer. Therefore, when the Chairman did not convene a meeting to consider the request for transfers, the request is deemed to have been rejected. The fact that on earlier occasions, requests for transfers have been considered by the committee and favourably recommended is also not a ground to hold that respondent Nos.4 to 6 have a legal right to contend that their request for transfer has to be considered. 7. The effect of transfer orders issued by respondent No.2 unilaterally and arbitrarily bypassing the Committee has virtually scuttled the opportunity of the petitioners to be considered for appointment to the post of President of District Forums of Kolar, Bidar, Hassan and Kodagu districts. The transfer orders are issued by respondent No.2 after inviting applications for filling up the post of President of the above said districts. Learned Advocate General submits that although the transfer orders were made, they were not given effect to and Respondent nos.4 to 6 are still working in their place of posting and not at the place of transfer. 8. In view of the above said submissions, the order of transfers at Annexure-E is quashed. The writ petitions are allowed. The Committee shall proceed with the selection process on the basis of the notification issued at Annexure-A.