RATHORE, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the appointment order dated 6. 10. 2003 whereby 11 persons have been appointed on the post of President, District Forum, Consumer Protection.
(2.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 6. 10. 2003 so far as it relates to the respondent No. 6 & 7 and further seeks direction to fill up the vacancies of the post of President, District Forum, Consumer Protection by appointing eligible and competent persons belonging to Scheduled Caste community in accordance with law and consider the case of the petitioner favourably for his appointment on the said post. The facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the respondent No. 5 invited applications from the eligible candidates fulfilling the legal conditions for appointment to the post of President, District, Forum, Consumer Protection. For this purpose, the respondent No. 5 made a request to the respondent No. 2 to send a list and applications of eligible in service judicial officers and the list was sent by the High Court along with the applications of in-service judicial officers. The retired District Judge submitted their applications directly to the respondent No. 5. The petitioner also submitted his application along with his caste certificate and copies of requisite service record of last five years, directly to the respondent No. 5. The selection committee constituted under Sub section 1-A of Section 10 of the Act interviewed the applications. The petitioner also appeared in interview pursuant to interview call letter dated 18. 9. 2003. The officers appointed by the aforesaid order included working District Judge, retired District Judge and officiating Additional District Judge. In the appointment order, the name of the respondent No. 6 & 7 appeared at S. No. 7 & 3, were officiating Additional District Judges from May, 1999 only and the petitioner as well as respondent No. 6 & 7 belongs to the Scheduled Caste community. Since respondent No. 6 & 7 have been given appointment being member of the Scheduled Caste community have far lesser merit qua the petitioner and they do not fulfill the legal conditions for appointment for the said post and the petitioner has been discriminated, therefore, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.
(3.) BESIDE the merit of the respondent No. 6 & 7, the petitioner has also challenged the appointment order of respondent No. 6 & 7 on the ground that the same has been issued in violation of provisions of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and the petitioner being meritorious retired District Judge cannot be denied his entitlement for appointment on the ground that in service officers though lesser merit are eligible to be appointed. The Appointing Committee cannot be permitted to act arbitrarily for the purpose of appointment as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments. Section 3 (17) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 defines the District Judge. As per Sub-section 17 of Section 3, District Judge shall mean the judge of a principal civil court of original jurisdiction, but shall not include a High Court in the exercise of its ordinary or extraordinary original civil jurisdiction. It is contended that an Additional District Judge, ordinarily, does not preside over the principal civil court of original jurisdiction nor he can exercise the powers of the District Judge in certain matters unless such powers are conferred on him or assigned to him. Article 236 (1) of the Constitution lays down the expression "district Judge" includes judges of a city civil court, Additional District Judge etc. has no application in the matter of appointment to the post of the President, District Forum under the Act and the like posts under different Acts. ;