JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for parties. These three writ petitions are preferred by the petitioners prosecuting a common cause of action and praying for an identical relief and are thus being decided together by this single order. 2. The petitioners herein are all practicing advocates in the State of Rajasthan enrolled in the Bar Council of Rajasthan. They had put in ten years of practise at the relevant point of time. 3. The State Government vide notification dated 11.7.2013 invited applications from the aspiring advocates having put in ten years of practise in accordance with Section 10(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, "the Act of 1986') for appointment against vacant posts of President, District Consumer Forums at Dungarpur, Jalore, Dausa, Churu, Bikaner, Jhunjhunu, Barmer, Sikar, Ajmer and Alwar Districts. Section 10(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 reads as under:- "Section 10(1)(a) (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, one of whom shall b a woman, Who shall have the following qualifications, namely:-- (i) be not less than thirty-five years of age, (ii) possess a bachelor's degree from a recognised university, (iii) be persons of ability, integrity and standing, and have adequate knowledge and experience of at least ten years in dealing with problems relating to economics, law, commerce, accountancy, industry, public affairs or administration: Provided that a persons shall be disqualified for appointment as a member, if he- (a) has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for an offence which, in the opinion of the State Government, involves moral turpitude; or (b) is an undischarged insolvent; or (c) is of unsound mind and stands so declared by a competent court; or (d) has been removed or dismissed from the service of the Government or a body corporate owned or controlled by the Government; or (e) has, in the opinion of the State Government, such financial or other interest as is likely to affect pre-judicially the discharge by him of his functions as a member; or (f) has such other disqualifications as may be prescribed by the State Government;"- 4. The petitioners claim to be holding the necessary eligibility criterion for being appointed as Presidents of District Consumer Forum and accordingly, they applied for selection and were selected as Presidents vide different orders dated 21.9.2013 at the following places:-- "Deendayal Prajapat- District Consumer Forum, Jalore Shiv Shankar-District Consumer Forum, Churu. Kanhaiya Lal-District Consumer Forum, Dungarpur." 5. The petitioners Deendayal and Shiv Shanker surrendered their licenses of practise from the Rajasthan State Bar Council whereas the petitioner Kanhaiya Lal who was working as Chief Law Assistant in the Railways resigned from his post for applying against the advertised posts. 6. The petitioners were satisfactorily discharging their duties/functions as Presidents at their respective District Consumer Forum when, out of the blue, the State Government issued notifications/orders dated 17.6.2015, and without giving any opportunity to show cause or without providing any opportunity of hearing to the" petitioners, terminated their appointments as President of the respective District Consumer Forum on the ground that they did not hold the requisite eligibility criterion for being appointed as Presidents of the District Consumer Forum. Being aggrieved of the above orders, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of these writ petitions. 7. The reasoning/logic behind the order dated 17.6.2015 terminating the petitioners' appointment is that they do not hold the requisite eligibility criterion required under Section 10(1)(a) of the Act of 1986 read with Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India for being appointed as the President, District Consumer Forum. 8. The petitioners have placed on record a copy of the reply filed by the State Government in a writ petition No. 4132/2012 (K.B. Agrawal v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) preferred at Jaipur Bench of this Court involving the very same controversy. The said writ petition was preferred by Mr. K.B. Agrawal challenging the appointment of ah advocate having 10 years standing at the Bar who was appointed as President, District Consumer Forum, Hanumangarh. The State Government in reply to the said writ petition has adopted the following stand:- "5. That the Contents of Para No. 5 of the Writ Petition are not admitted in the manner stated. However, it is clarified that appointment of Respondent No. 2 as President of District Consumer Forum is perfectly as per the provisions of law. The appointment of Respondent No. 2 is fully according to the provisions of Section 10(1)(a) of Act of 1986. 6. However, it is clarified that appointment of Respondent No. 2 as President of District Consumer Forum is perfectly as per the provisions of law. The appointment of Respondent No. 2 is fully according to the provisions of Section 10(1)(a) of Act of 1986. 6. That the Contents of Para No. 6 of the Writ Petition are not admitted in the manner stated. However, it is not disputed that Article 233 of the Constitution of India deals with the appointment of District Judges. It may be relevant to point out that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short 'Act of 1986') was enacted and brought into force with object of speedy and effective redressal of complaints related to Consumers. Section 10 of the Act of 1986 provide for composition of the District Forum which inter-alia provides that each District Forum shall consist of a person who is or has been, or is qualified to be, a District Judge who shall be its President. Thus clearly a person who is or had been a District Judge OR is qualified to be a District Judge, shall be eligible to be appointed as President of the District Forum. The intention of the legislature is very clear that the person sought to be appointed as President may either be a District Judge or qualified to be a District Judge. There does not remain any room for doubt that any person qualified to be a District Judge, can be appointed as President of the District Forum. At the same Article-233 of the Constitution of India provides that a person who has been in practise as an Advocate or a pleader for not less than 7 years may be recommended to be appointed as District Judge. On facts, it is clear from the certificates issued by the District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur City that the Respondent No. 2 has practised as an Advocate for more than seven years and thus he possesses the requisite experience of Advocacy of more than seven years. Therefore, the Respondent No. 2 was qualified as per Section 10 of Act of 1986 to be appointed as President, District Forum. 7. Therefore, the Respondent No. 2 was qualified as per Section 10 of Act of 1986 to be appointed as President, District Forum. 7. That in reply to the Contents of Para No. 7 of the Writ Petition, it is submitted that Section 10 of the Act of 1986 provide for composition of the District Forum including that a person qualified to be a District Judge, may be appointed as the President of District Forum. It is clarified that the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Services Rules, 1969 are not in existence. Further, the selections of President, Consumer Forum are governed by the Act of 1986, as such the relevant provisions regulating selection of District Judge are not applicable nor can be applied. 8. That the Contents of Para No. 8 of the Writ Petition are not admitted in the manner stated. However, it is submitted that Answering Respondent never informed the Petitioner about Respondent No. 2 being not qualified to be appointed as District Judge. It is totally wrong on the part of Petitioner to allege that Respondent No. 2 was not qualified to be District Judge. Rather the Petitioner is twisting the facts to suit him and to mislead himself. 9. That the Contents of Para No. 9 of the Writ Petition are not admitted in the manner stated. However, it is not disputed that the posts of President for different District Forums were advertised vide Notification dated 29.7.2010 wherein Respondent No. 2 also participated submitting the application along with requisite documents. Rather the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed only on the ground of delay & laches as the Respondent No. 2 was appointed way back on 29.4.2011. Selection Committee considered the candidature of the candidates and recommended the names of the suitable candidates which include the name of Respondent No. 2 Answering Respondent craves liberty to keep the Minutes of the meeting of the Selection Committee, ready for perusal of the Hon'ble Court at the time of hearing of the matter. Consequent to the recommendation by Selection Committee, the Respondent No. 2 has rightly been given appointment as President, District Consumer Forum, who is presently serving as the President, District Consumer Forum. It would not be out of place to mention here that a good number of advocates are being appointed as President, District Consumer Forums in various States across the country. It would not be out of place to mention here that a good number of advocates are being appointed as President, District Consumer Forums in various States across the country. A challenge was made to such selections in different High Courts on various grounds; however, High Courts have dismissed the petitions taking the interpretation of Section 10 of Act of 1986 in right perspective inter-alia accepting that a person qualified to be District Judge may be appointed as the President of District Forum. The allegation of Petitioner that before appointment as President, Consumer Forum, the candidate has to pass certain test & criteria and than he has to obtain merit in the selection list of District Judge; is totally devoid of merit in as much as the appointment of President, Consumer Forum is governed as per the provisions of Act of 1986 and according to the same, an applicant who is qualified to be a District Judge, shall be eligible for appointment as President, Consumer Forum. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its Judgment delivered in " Pareena Swarup v. UOI " had the occasion to interpret in relation to the qualification i.e. those who are qualified to be a District Judge. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that there is no requirement to amend either the Statute or the Rules and the persons - qualified to be a District Judge, are treated at par with District Judges for the purposes of qualification. Moreover during the debate and discussion in Lok Sabha on the Bill -to amend the Consumer Protection Act 1986, it was clearly given out that a Practicing Lawyer who is qualified to be District Judge can be appointed as President of Consumer Forum and the advantage of the relevant clause may be taken for such purpose." 9. Reply filed to the present writ petitions carries a contrary stance of the State as opposed to the reply preferred in the above mentioned writ petition No. 4132/2012. 10. While entertaining the writ petitions, vide interim orders of different dates, this Court stayed the operation of the impugned orders dated 17.6.2015. 11. The respondents preferred applications under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India praying for vacation of the interim orders. During the course of hearing of the said applications, learned AAG Dr. 10. While entertaining the writ petitions, vide interim orders of different dates, this Court stayed the operation of the impugned orders dated 17.6.2015. 11. The respondents preferred applications under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India praying for vacation of the interim orders. During the course of hearing of the said applications, learned AAG Dr. Bhati was asked to explain the apparently inconsistent stands of the State Government in these writ petitions and the one taken in the above mentioned writ petition No. 4132/2012, learned AAG Dr. Bhati candidly conceded that the stand is inconsistent and cannot be reconciled. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the orders under challenge are absolutely illegal, arbitrary and bad in eye of law. The orders were passed without giving any notice to show cause or without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Learned counsel Mr. Manoj Bhandari contended that reliance placed by the respondents on Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India for terminating the petitioners services is misconceived. As per him, the requirement that a person should be recommended for appointment as a District Judge, if applied verbatim to the process of appointment of a President, District Consumer Forum would lead to an absurd situation. In that event, only such person whose name was recommended for being appointed as District Judge by the High Court, and for some reason or the other, he/she either did not get appointed as District Judge or gave up the opportunity, could seek appointment under the Advocates quota. He submitted that the term "recommendation" as used in Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India is only relevant for actual appointment of a District Judge and is not germane or relevant when the appointment of President, District Consumer Forum is being considered under Section 10 of the Act of 1986. He thus urged that the impugned orders deserve to be quashed and set aside as being totally arbitrary and contrary to the statutory provisions. 13. Learned AAG Mr. Bhati, despite being faced with the above adversity owing to the above noted inconsistent pleadings, vehemently contended that the petitioners' appointments were rightly cancelled because they were not holding requisite eligibility criterion/qualification for being appointed as Presidents, District Consumer Forum. 13. Learned AAG Mr. Bhati, despite being faced with the above adversity owing to the above noted inconsistent pleadings, vehemently contended that the petitioners' appointments were rightly cancelled because they were not holding requisite eligibility criterion/qualification for being appointed as Presidents, District Consumer Forum. He persisted with the argument that for being appointed as President, District Consumer Forum, the applicant's name is required to be recommended by the High Court for appointment as a District Judge as required by Article 233(1) of the Constitution of India. As per him, only in that eventuality, the aspirant can acquire qualification for being appointed as President, District Consumer Forum. 14. I have heard the arguments advanced at the Bar and have perused the material available on record. 15. On the face of the record, the termination orders suffer from the vice of having been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Before passing the impugned orders, neither any opportunity to show cause nor any opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioners. Thus, on the face of the record and on this ground alone, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. 16. Coming to the merits of the impugned orders. The foundation of the orders is based upon the assertion that the petitioners were not holding the requisite qualification for being appointed as the President of District Consumer Forum.' This foundation is built up on the premise of Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India which reads as below:- "233(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." 17. From a bare perusal of the language of Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India, it is evident that the said provision only comes into picture while considering the eligibility of a person for being appointed as a District Judge and before his appointment in that cadre. It goes without saying that unless the name of the qualified person is recommended by the High Court, he cannot be appointed as a District Judge. Be that as it may, no such recommendation is required for appointment as President, District Consumer Forum. It goes without saying that unless the name of the qualified person is recommended by the High Court, he cannot be appointed as a District Judge. Be that as it may, no such recommendation is required for appointment as President, District Consumer Forum. If at all, the analogy taken by the State Government in its reply and the arguments advanced by the learned AAG Dr. Bhati is accepted, then it would lead to a situation of absolute absurdity. Finding persons who give up the post of District Judge after recommendation by the High Court, would be like searching for a needle in the haystack. If this view is taken, then the very objective of Section 10(1)(a) of the Act of 1986 which allows an advocate having ten years standing to be appointed as President, District Consumer Forum, would become redundant. What is required under Section 10(1)(a) of the Act of 1986 is that a person who claims appointment as President of District Consumer Forum should be qualified to be a District Judge. If at all, the Legislature intended that the applicant's name should also have been recommended by the High Court for appointment as a District Judge, then the said requirement would have been introduced in this provision as well. The field of operation of Section 10(1)(a) of the Act of 1986 and Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India is entirely different and divergent. 18. There is another very significant difference in the language of Section 10(1)(a) of the Act of 1986 and Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India. Under Section 10 of the Act of 1986 only a person having experience of minimum. 10 years as an advocate can apply for seeking appointment as a President, District Consumer Forum whereas under Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India, an Advocate having legal practise of only 7 years is qualified for being appointed as District Judge. 19. In this background, this Court is of the firm opinion that the impugned orders dated 17.6.2015 whereby, the State Government cancelled the appointment orders of the petitioners as Presidents, District Consumer Forum of their respective Districts on the ground of they not holding requisite qualifications are absolutely illegal, perverse, arbitrary and contrary to law. 20. Consequently, the instant writ petitions deserve to be and are hereby allowed. 20. Consequently, the instant writ petitions deserve to be and are hereby allowed. The orders dated 17.6.2015 under challenge in these writ petitions are declared to be illegal and are hereby quashed and set aside. 21. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be placed in each file.Petition allowed. *******