JUDGMENT : Arup Kumar Goswami, J. 1. Heard Mr. S.P. Kale, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for respondents No. 1 & 2. 2. The present appeal is preferred by the writ petitioner No. 3 against the judgment dated 01.02.2022 passed in WPS No. 42 of 2022 with regard to the finding recorded that he was not eligible to hold the post of President, District Commission, on the ground that he was not a practicing Advocate on the date of advertisement dated 15.07.2021. 3. Three questions were formulated by the learned Single Judge, which are as follows: “1. Whether the rule of reservation as provided in the Act of 1994 would apply to appointment on the post of President of the District Commission under Section 28 of the Act of 2019 read with the Rules of 2020? 2.1) Whether the respondents are justified in declaring the petitioners as ineligible for the post of President, District Commission holding them as over-aged? 2.2) Whether the respondents are justified in holding the petitioners as ineligible on the ground that they have not completed seven years of practice as an advocate or a pleader, as required under clause (2) of Article 233 of the Constitution of India read with Rule 4(2) of the Rules of 2020 on 15-7-2021 on the date of advertisement?” 4. Question No. 1 and 2.(1) are not relevant for the purpose of this appeal, and what is relevant is Question No. 2.(2). 5. Mr. Kale submits that the learned Single Judge committed error of facts in holding that the petitioner did not continuously practice as an advocate during the previous seven years and in that context, he has placed reliance on the Experience Certificate dated 31.07.2021 issued by the District and Sessions Judge, Bilaspur . 6. The appellant had enrolled in the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh on 01.11.1998 and the relevant part of the Experience Certificate annexed with the application submitted pursuant to the advertisement reads as follows: “….. he has been practicing as an Advocate since December, 1998 and still continuing in this Court”. 7. 6. The appellant had enrolled in the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh on 01.11.1998 and the relevant part of the Experience Certificate annexed with the application submitted pursuant to the advertisement reads as follows: “….. he has been practicing as an Advocate since December, 1998 and still continuing in this Court”. 7. The appellant was held to be disqualified on the ground that he had not enclosed any certificate indicating that he had been continuously practicing during the previous seven years and that, presently he was functioning as a Member of the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur and prior to that, he was a Member of the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Bilaspur. 8. Rule 4 of the Consumer Protection (Qualification for appointment, method of recruitment, procedure of appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of the Present and members of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020 (for short, ‘the Rules of 2020’) provides that a person shall not be qualified for appointment as President, unless he is, or has been, or is qualified to be a District Judge. 9. Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India provides that a person not already in the service of the Union or of the State shall only be eligible to be appointed as 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. 10. In the case of Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi, reported in (2020) 7 SCC 401 , at paragraph 47.4, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that for the purpose of Article 233(2), an advocate has to be continuing in practice for not less than seven years as on the cut-off date and at the time of appointment as District Judge. It was also held that the members of judicial service having seven years experience of practice before they have joined the service or having combined experience of seven years as Lawyer and member of Judiciary, are not eligible to apply for direct recruitment as a District Judge. 11. It was also held that the members of judicial service having seven years experience of practice before they have joined the service or having combined experience of seven years as Lawyer and member of Judiciary, are not eligible to apply for direct recruitment as a District Judge. 11. It is not in dispute that the appellant was holding the post of Member of District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Bilaspur from 11.08.2010 to 10.08.2015 and also from 01.02.2016 to 08.06.2020 and as a Member of the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur from 10.06.2020 and certificate to that effect was submitted by the appellant himself while responding to the advertisement. 12. The aforesaid certificate unequivocally demonstrates that the appellant was not practicing continuously during the preceding seven years from the date of the advertisement, and therefore, the view taken by the learned Single Judge holding the appellant not eligible to be appointed as a President, District Commission, needs no interference. 13. Resultantly, the appeal being devoid of merit, is dismissed. No cost.