JUDGMENT : (Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.) The moot question in this petition is whether the post of “Registrar” in Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission can be kept as a Cadre Post for the Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Services. 2. The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive relief:- (i) That an appropriate writ, order or direction may very kindly be issued directing the respondents-State to accept the proposal sent by the President, H.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission with respect to selection/appointment to the post of Registrar in the H.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in the interest of law and justice. (ii) That an appropriate writ, order or direction may very kindly be issued directing the respondents-State to make appropriate provisions for filling up the post of Registrar in H.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission as proposed by the President of the State Consumer Commission in the draft rules, in the interest of justice and fair play; (iii) That an appropriate writ, order or direction may very kindly be issued to quash and set aside the provisions contained in Part-II of Schedule-II, Column-1, of notification dated 29.2.2024, with respect to the mode of appointment to the post of Registrar in State Consumer Commission, in the interest of law and justice.” 3. It is averred by the petitioner that it was in exercise of the powers conferred by sub Section (1) of Section 103 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 that the Consumer Protection Regulations 2005 came to be repealed and the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations 2020 (in short ‘Regulation 2020’) were promulgated by the Central Government. The “Registrar” has been defined in Regulation 2(d), which reads as follows:- “Registrar” means the head of the ministerial establishment of the Consumer Commission and exercising such powers and functions as are conferred upon him by the President of the Consumer Commission.” 4. It is further averred that provisions of Section 24B of the Repealed Act are pari materia of Section 70 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and such provision came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2740 of 2007 titled State of U.P & ors. Vs. It is further averred that provisions of Section 24B of the Repealed Act are pari materia of Section 70 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and such provision came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2740 of 2007 titled State of U.P & ors. Vs. All U.P Consumer Protection Bar Association and decided on 21.11.2016, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically held that Section 24B vests administrative control over the State Commission in the President of the National Commission and over the District Fora in the President of the State Commission. 5. Thereafter, in suo moto Writ Petition (Civil) No.2 of 2021 vide order dated 6.12.2022, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the administrative control over all the staff of the State Commission and District Fora would vest in the President of the State Commission and, therefore, without adhering to the repeated recommendations of the President of the Commission to amend the Rules regarding the appointment of Registrar and issue notification dated 29.2.2024 in respect of mode of appointment of post of Registrar is illegal and liable to be quashed. 6. The respondents filed their reply wherein they have tried to justify their action by stating that Registrar of the Commission is an officer of the State Government and is from the cadre of Himachal Pradesh Administrative Services. However, when posted against the post of Registrar, he will be under general supervision of the President of the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and discharge such functions as are assigned to him by the President of Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The Registrar, without any prior approval of the President, cannot take any decision. Even the President has every right to assess his work and make remarks accordingly. Hence, it cannot be said that the President of Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has no control over the Registrar of Consumer Commission. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record. 8. Even the President has every right to assess his work and make remarks accordingly. Hence, it cannot be said that the President of Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has no control over the Registrar of Consumer Commission. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record. 8. It is not in dispute that while construing Section 24B of the then Consumer Act, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in All UP Consumer Protection Bar Association’s case (supra) , has categorically held that administrative control of the State Commission vests in the President of the National Commission and as regards the District Fora in the President of the State Commission. It shall be apt to reproduce para 12 of the order, which reads as under:- “12. In these circumstances, we hold that Section 24B vests administrative control over the State Commissions in the President of the National Commission and over the district fora in the Presidents of the State Commissions. The extent of the administrative control shall be in all matters relating to the administrative functioning of the forum concerned including but not limited to assignment of judicial and administrative work; posting, transfer and control over members; selection, appointment and disciplinary matters relating to the staff of the distract for a and State Commissions and in relation provisioning and meeting the infrastructural requirements of those bodies. The requirements of infrastructure shall be met in coordination with the Departments of Consumer Affairs of the states concerned and in relation to the National Commission in coordination with the Union Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution.” 9. However, the moot question in the instant case is regarding the position of the “Registrar” and it cannot be disputed that when a HAS officer, belonging to the cadre of HP State Administrative Services is posted as a “Registrar”, he would be an employee of the commission for all intents and purposes. Further, in terms of judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition (supra), it has been categorically held that it would be President of the State Commissions who would be disciplinary authority for its staff, which essentially will include the “Registrar”. But once the “Registrar” happens to be from the cadre of Himachal Pradesh Administrative Services, obviously the President of the Commission will have no authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings. But once the “Registrar” happens to be from the cadre of Himachal Pradesh Administrative Services, obviously the President of the Commission will have no authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings. In case any act of misdemeanor, irregularity/ mis-conduct warranting disciplinary action against the “Registrar” comes to the notice of the President, he would be helpless as he would essentially require it to be brought to the State Government, which is not contemplated in either of the provisions of the Act or the mandate of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in two judgments cited above. Once the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Legislation has given complete control and authority to the President of the Commission, such authority cannot be undermined given by the State Government much less its officers. 10. The respondents ought to have ensured that instead of creating hurdles, they should have given due deference and acceded to the request of the President of the Commission vide his letters dated 3.11.2022 and 13.3.2023 and should not have cantankerously contested this petition, particularly, when it is conceded that the post of Registrar in the State Commission of neighbouring states, i.e., Punjab, Haryana, U.T Chandigarh as well as in other States of the country is a cadre post being filled up by promotion. 11. Moreover, the recommendations to fill up the post of Registrar, H.P State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission by promotion from amongst law graduates are pursuant to the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the two cases cited above, wherein it has been categorically held that the President, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission shall be the appointing and disciplinary authority qua staff of the respective State Commissions. 12 Clearly the action of the respondents in issuing the notification dated 29.2. 2024 with regard to the provisions contained in Part II of Schedule II Column No.1 with respect to the appointment to the post of the Registrar in the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission from the HPAS cadre is absolutely illegal and accordingly the same is quashed and set aside. The said provision shall stand substituted as under:- Sl. 2024 with regard to the provisions contained in Part II of Schedule II Column No.1 with respect to the appointment to the post of the Registrar in the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission from the HPAS cadre is absolutely illegal and accordingly the same is quashed and set aside. The said provision shall stand substituted as under:- Sl. No. Name of post No. of post Mode of appointment/ Length of service Qualification 1 Registrar 1 By placement from Assistant Registrar who possesses seven years regular service or regular combined with continuous ad hoc service rendered, if any, in the grade, failing which on secondment basis from HPAS Degree in Law 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion and for the reasons stated above, the instant petition is allowed accordingly leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.