Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Sandeep Mehta

JUDGMENT

Sandeep Mehta, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for parties. These three writ petitions are preferred by the petitioners prosecuting a common cause of action and praying for an identical relief and are thus being decided together by this single order.

2. The petitioners herein are all practicing advocates in the State of Rajasthan enrolled in the Bar Council of Rajasthan. They had put in ten years of practice at the relevant point of time.

3. The State Government vide notification dated 11.7.2013 invited applications from the aspiring advocates having put in ten years of practice in accordance with Section 10(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, "the Act of 1986') for appointment against vacant posts of President, District Consumer Forums at Dungarpur, Jalore, Oausa, Churu, Bikaner, Jhunjhunu, Barmer, Sikar, Ajmer and Alwar Districts. Section 10(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 reads as under:--

"Section 10(1)(a)

(a) a person who is, or has been, or is qualified to be a District Judge, who shall be its President;

(b) two other members, one of whom shall b a woman, Who shall have the following qualifications, namely:--

(i) be not less than thirty-five years of age,

(ii) possess a bachelor's degree from a recognised university,

(iii) be persons of ability, integrity and standing, and have adequate knowledge and experience of at least ten years in dealing with problems relating to economics, law, commerce, accountancy, industry, public affairs or administration:

Provided that a persons shall be disqualified for appointment as a member, if he-

(a) has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for an offence which, in the opinion of the State Government, involves moral turpitude; or

(b) is an undischarged insolvent; or

(c) is of unsound mind and stands so declared by a competent court; or

(d) has been removed or dismissed from the service of the Government or a body corporate owned or controlled by the Government; or

(e) has, in the opinion of the State Government, such financial or other interest as is likely to affect prejudicially the discharge by him of his functions as a member; or

(f) has such other disqualifications as may be prescribed by the State Government;"-

4. The petitioners claim to be holding the necessary eligibility criterion for being appointed as Presidents of District Consumer Forum and accordingly, they applied for selection and were selected as Presidents vide different orders dated 21.9.2013 at the following places:--

"Deendayal Prajapat- District Consumer Forum, Jalore Shiv Shankar-District Consumer Forum, Churu. Kanhaiya Lal-District Consumer Forum, Dungarpur."

5. The petitioners Deendayal and Shiv Shanker surrendered their licenses of practice from the Rajasthan State Bar Council whereas the petitioner Kanhaiya Lal who was working as Chief Law Assistant in the Railways resigned from his post for applying against the advertised posts.

6. The petitioners were satisfactorily discharging their duties/functions as Presidents at their respective District Consumer Forum when, out of the blue, the State Government issued notifications/orders dated 17.6.2015, and without giving any opportunity to show cause or without providing any opportunity of hearing to the" petitioners, terminated their appointments as President of the respective District Consumer Forum on the ground that they did not hold the requisite eligibility criterion for being appointed as Presidents of the District Consumer Forum. Being aggrieved of the above orders, the petitioners have ap........