Justice Kaushik Goswami passed the interim order in a writ petition challenging an advertisement issued by the Assam Public Service Commission (APSC) for appointment of a Non-Judicial Member of the State Consumer Commission, as well as a subsequent notification published in The Assam Tribune.

The question before 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, after the Supreme Court had struck down certain provisions of those Rules and directed that fresh Rules be notified.

The petitioners relied upon the Supreme Court's decision in Ganesh Kumar Rajeswar Rao Selukar and Others v. Dr. Mahendra Bhaskar Limaye and Others [(2025) 8 SCC 634] and contended that despite the Supreme Court's directions, the Assam authorities had proceeded with recruitment without any fresh Rules having been framed.

The State submitted that no fresh Rules had been framed till date. However, it argued that the Government had reconstituted the Selection Committee pursuant to the Supreme Court's judgment and the existing Rule 6(1), and that the proposed selection was therefore in conformity with the apex court's directions.

The High Court examined the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Ganesh Kumar Rajeswar Rao Selukar and noted that the apex court had affirmed the striking down of Rules 6(1) and 10(2) of the Consumer Protection Rules, 2020.

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.” 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 stayed, until further orders, the operation of the advertisement and the notification dated 02.07.2026 published in the Assa, Tribune.

The Court, also protected the petitioners' continuance as Members of their respective District Consumer Commissions during the pendency of the interim order. Their continuance was made subject to their attaining the age of superannuation or further orders of the Court, whichever occurs earlier.

The matter is posted on August 27 for further consideration.

Case Title: Tutumoni Deva Goswami and Ors. v State of Assam and Ors

Case No: WP(C) 3663/ 2026

Counsel for Petitioner: P. K. Roy, S. K Chakraborty, A Chakraborty, B. Das