Members whose term expires and reappointment is rejected have no vested right to continue.

The respondent was appointed as a Member of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shivamogga, for a five-year term beginning 3 March 2020. Her term ended on 3 March 2025, and the Selection Committee did not recommend her for a further term.

Two other Members, whose terms also ended on that date and whose cases were later rejected by the Selection Committee, continued in office. They had obtained an order in an earlier writ petition directing their continuation until the Committee made its recommendation.

The respondent’s writ petition was allowed by a Single Judge, who directed her reappointment or continuation. The State appealed.

Whether the respondent was entitled to continued service because two other Members whose further terms were also not recommended remained in office.

Whether the respondent had a legal right to continue as a Member after the expiry of her term and the Selection Committee’s decision not to recommend her for another term.

The appointment and extension of Members of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions are governed by 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) (Amendment) Rules, 2022.

The Court applied the principle that an incumbent has no vested legal right to continue after the prescribed term expires where the Selection Committee does not recommend a further term.

It also considered Ganesh Kumar Rajeshwar Rao v. Mahendra Bhaskar Limaye, (2025) 8 SCC 634, which directed that existing incumbents continue until fresh selections are made.

The other Members’ continuation did not establish that the respondent was similarly entitled to remain in office: their continuation followed from a specific court order that operated until the Selection Committee made its recommendation.

Once the Committee rejected their cases on 23 April 2025, they too had no right to continue on that basis.

The respondent, by contrast, had been relieved on 3 March 2025 and had no equivalent order in force on that date.

The Court therefore rejected her claim of discrimination and held that expiry of her term, coupled with the absence of a recommendation for another term, did not give her a right to continued service.

It granted the State liberty either to relieve the two other Members or to reappoint the respondent until the Selection Committee’s recommendation, consistently with the directions in Ganesh Kumar, or until she attains 65 years of age, whichever occurs first.