Harinder Singh Sidhu, J. - (1.) This order shall dispose of two appeals, referred to above. The facts are being taken from LPA No. 679 of 2014.
(2.) The appellant has challenged the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 19.03.2014, whereby CWP filed by the appellant has been dismissed. The appellant is a practicing advocate at District Courts, Jagadhari at Yamuna Nagar and was enrolled as such in the year 2000. Vide Annexure P-1 dated 20.01.2014 seven posts of President of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Fora in the State of Haryana were advertised. The appellant claims that he fulfils the eligibility conditions as prescribed under Section 10 (1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short 'the Act'). His grievance is against clause 9 of the advertisement, which is reproduced as under:- "9. The Government of Haryana has not prescribed any written test for the posts of Presidents of the District for a in the State of Haryana, selection committee is adopting the criteria as per the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Navnit Kumar Potdar, reported as 1995(1) S.C.T. 50 : (1994) 6 SCC 293 , wherein it is open to the Selection Committee to fix its own criteria. Keeping in view the salary of the Presidents of the District Fora, which is more than rupees 12,50,000/- per annum, the Selection Committee has decided that only those candidates shall be considered who have filed their income tax returns showing their professional income not less than rupees 5.00 lacs per annum and are income tax payee for at least three years. The candidates shall annex the attested/certified copies of income tax returns along with their applications failing which their applications will be liable to be rejected out rightly."
(3.) The appellant is aggrieved of the aforesaid condition incorporated by the Selection Committee that only those candidates shall be considered, who have filed their income tax returns showing their professional income not less than 5.00 lacs per annum and are income tax payees for the last three years. The contention of the appellant was that this condition imposed by the Selection Committee was contrary to the rules which contained no such provision. It was further contended that the Selection Committee had no jurisdiction to prescribe its own criteria for the purpose of short listing candidates and thereby debarring candidates otherwise eligible but not fulfilling the criteria imposed by it from even applying for the said posts. Questioning the relevance of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission's case (supra) relied on by the Selection Committee for the imposition of the condition, it was submitted that unlike the Madhya Pradesh case relied upon, the present case is not a case of short listing the candidates after receipt of the applications based on the large number of applications received for the aforesaid posts. Even the merits of the condition imposed was sought to be challenged on the ground that the competence of an advocate for the post of President of District Consumer Forum cannot be judged on the basis of his professional income as an advocate.;