Gauhati HC Stays Recruitment in Assam State Consumer Commission Over SC Rule Violation

Staff Reporter

Guwahati: The Gauhati High Court has stayed the recruitment process for the appointment of a Non-Judicial Member of the Assam State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, holding that the selection process prima facie appeared to have been initiated in violation of directions issued by the Supreme Court concerning the Consumer Protection Rules, 2020.

Justice Kaushik Goswami passed the interim order in a writ petition filed by several petitioners under Article 226, challenging an advertisement issued by the Assam Public Service Commission (APSC) for the appointment of a Non-Judicial Member of the State Consumer Commission, as well as a notification subsequently published in a local English daily.

The question facing the Court was whether the state could proceed with recruitment under the Consumer Protection (Qualification for Appointment, Method of Recruitment, Procedure of Appointment, Term of Office, Resignation and Removal of the President and Members of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020, as the Supreme Court (SC) had struck down certain provisions of those Rules and directed that fresh Rules be notified.

The petitioners relied upon an earlier SC decision and contended that despite the apex court's directions, the authorities in Assam had initiated the recruitment process without any fresh Rules having been framed.

On its part, the State submitted that no fresh Rules had been framed to date. However, it argued that the Government had reconstituted the Selection Committee pursuant to the SC judgement and the existing Rule 6(1) of the Consumer Protection Rules, 2020, and therefore, contended that the proposed selection pursuant to the impugned advertisement is in conformity with the directions issued by the SC.

The apex court had directed that, upon notification of the new Rules by the Union government, all states were to complete the recruitment process under those Rules within four months.

"In the present case, admittedly, no fresh Rules have been brought on record. Prima facie, therefore, the recruitment process appears to have been initiated under the Consumer Protection Rules, 2020, notwithstanding that Rules 6(1) and 10(2) thereof stand struck down by the Apex Court and that the States have been directed to undertake recruitment only upon notification of the fresh Rules by the Union of India," the court noted.

The Court therefore found that the petitioners had established a strong prima facie case for interim protection. It also held that the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the status quo and that refusing interim relief could potentially render the writ petition itself infructuous.

Accordingly, the High Court, until further orders, stayed the operation of the advertisement and the notification.

The court, however, clarified that during the subsistence of the aforesaid interim order, the petitioners shall be permitted to continue as Members of their respective District Consumer Commissions, subject, however, to their attaining the age of superannuation or until further orders of this Court, whichever is earlier.

The court directed that the matter be relisted on August 27, 2026.

Also Read: Assam: Two Arrested in Tamulpur with Elephant Tusks in STF Operation