https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308545 The Bombay High Court examined the 2020 Consumer Protection Rules governing appointments to State and District Commissions and held that selection for these adjudicatory posts must follow objective, uniform and transparent standards. It found Rule 6(9) invalid because it gave each Selection Committee uncanalised discretion to ermine its own procedure, contrary to fairness and Article 14. It also struck down the prescribed 20-year and 15-year experience thresholds in Rules 3(2)(b) and 4(2)(c) as unreasonable and inconsistent with the statutory scheme and earlier binding norms. As a consequence, the vacancy notice and ongoing selection process were quashed and cancelled. en-us Tue, 14 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 03 Jul 2023 20:51:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308545 The Bombay High Court examined the 2020 Consumer Protection Rules governing appointments to State and District Commissions and held that selection for these adjudicatory posts must follow objective, uniform and transparent standards. It found Rule 6(9) invalid because it gave each Selection Committee uncanalised discretion to ermine its own procedure, contrary to fairness and Article 14. It also struck down the prescribed 20-year and 15-year experience thresholds in Rules 3(2)(b) and 4(2)(c) as unreasonable and inconsistent with the statutory scheme and earlier binding norms. As a consequence, the vacancy notice and ongoing selection process were quashed and cancelled. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 14 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308545