PRASAD, J. - (1.) IN the present writ petition, the petitioner has raised a grievance regarding his transfer.
(2.) THE petitioner was an Officer belonging to the cadre of Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service. In 1996 he was working as Special Judge (SC/st Cases) and Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner. At the relevant time, composition of various District Forums in the State was to be completed. THE petitioner was qualified to be appointed as President of a District Forum. After being considered, the petitioner was appointed as President, District Consumer Protection Forum, Pali (referred hereinafter as `the Forum') vide order dated 9. 2. 1996. THE order has been produced as Ex. 1 with the writ petition. While the petitioner was discharging the functions of the President of the Forum, he was informed telephonically that he has been transferred/posted as President, District Consumer Protection Forum, Jalore and in his place respondent No. 5 has been appointed/posted as the President of the District Consumer Protection Forum, Pali. Later on the petitioner received a communication from the State Government dated 15. 11. 1999 whereby he was ordered to be appointed as President, District Consumer Protection Forum, Banswara in supersession of the earlier orders. The petitioner further contended that he offered to be appointed on the post of President, District Consumer Protection Forum pursuant to a communication received by him from the Registrar, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur dated 20. 11. 1995 produced with the writ petition as Ex. 8. In reply to such communication he submitted his willingness vide Ex. 9 dated 27. 11. 1995. He submitted that he had given his concurrence to be appointed as President, District Consumer Protection Forum at two places. First preference was for Pali and the second was for Nagaur. No other place was opted by the petitioner. He has made it clear in his letter Ex. 9 that he does not give his concurrence to be appointed at any other place. In the writ petition, the petitioner has contended that the District Consumer Protection Forums have been created as separate entities for each district. The composition of such forums was to be completed by the State Government on the recommendations of the Selection Committee consisting of the Members as provided for in Section 10 (1a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (referred to hereinafter as `the Act' ). The term of the Membership of such Forum was upto the age of 65 years or five years, whichever was earlier. No one, who has held the position once, was eligible to be reappointed. In proviso to Section 10 (2) of the Act it has been provided that as and when a member resigns from his office his office shall become vacant and may be filled in by appointment of a person possessing any of the qualifications mentioned in Sub-Section (1) of Section 10 of the Act in relation to the category of the member who has resigned. The Scheme of the Act does not suggest that the Legislature ever thought of conceiving of a common cadre for manning these forums. Each forum was conceived as an independent entity, Its composition was as provided for in Section 10 of the Act and it was never conceived that any appointment to complete the composition of the forum could be made by transfer. That being the position, the petitioner contends that the transfer ordered by the respondent State is not in accordance with the Scheme of the Act and, thus, the order is without jurisdiction.
(3.) THE petitioner was functioning as a persona designata on the post of President, District Consumer Protection Forum. No transferable cadre has ever been thought, conceived or considered for completing the composition of District Consumer Protection forums. Each Forum was to be constituted independent of there being any right of transfer with the State Government. THEre was no regular cadre available with the State to complete the composition of District Forums, transfer as incidence of service cannot be seen into the term of appointment of Member, District Consumer Protection Forum. THE persons who will be appointed to the forum will not be able to be considered for being reappointed to the service after completion of the term of 5 years. That being the position, it cannot be conceived that a person will agree to an appointment where he can be subjected to the vagaries of being shifted from one place to another in a short term. This is too onerous a condition for a limited period appointment. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Supreme Court decision rendered in General Officer Commanding-in-Chief and another vs. Dr. Subhash Chandra Yadav and another (1), wherein their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- "the observation extracted above clearly supports the contention made on behalf of the respondent that the employees of one Cantonment Board cannot be transferred to another Cantonment Board inasmuch as the service under the Cantonment Board is not a centralised service or a service at the State-level. " Learned counsel for the petitioner has further urged that in the aforesaid case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the rule making power of the authorities and has come to the conclusion that the Cantonment Act has not provided for making a rule for the transfers. Therefore, the rule giving power of transferring the employees was struck down. ;