- (1.) This order shall dispose of L.P.A. No. 17 of 2011 as well as CWP No. 2044 of 2011 as common question of facts and law are involved. In both the cases, appointment of respondent No. 3, Shri Harjit Singh Nag, as Member, District Consumer Forum, Amritsar has been challenged and the grounds of challenge are similar. The appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgement dated 23.11.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that the marks have been given by all the three members separately in accordance with the criterion mentioned therein and the Court is not to substitute its own judgement for that of the Selection Committee more particularly when no allegations of mala-fide or extraneous considerations having been levelled.
(2.) Brief facts of the case necessary for the disposal of the controversy are that an advertisement was published at the instance of StateLPA No. 17 of 2011 2 Consumer Redressal Commission, Punjab in English Daily 'The Tribune' on 28.3.2010 inviting applications for filling up of, inter-alia, one post of District Consumer Redressal Forum, Amritsar. The last date of receipt of application was 19.4.2010. According to the terms of the advertisement the candidate was required to be a person of ability, integrity and standing alongwith adequate knowledge and experience of at least ten years in dealing with the problems relating to economics, law, commerce, accountancy, industry, public affairs or administration. The appellant has claimed that he fulfilled all the requisite qualifications and accordingly applied for the post. The appellant alongwith other persons including respondent No. 3 was called for the interview. After considering the competing claim of various candidates, respondent No. 3 was found more meritorious and was accordingly appointed. It is conceded on both hands that Selection Committee laid down the criterion on 18.2.2008 for selection of candidates for the District Consumer Forum which is as under: JUDGEMENT_431_LAWS(P&H)4_20111.html
(3.) Mr. D.V.Sharma, learned senior counsel for the appellant has argued that in the detailed bio-data submitted by respondent No. 3 (P.3) alongwith brief details of experience there is not even a mention of any social service which he might have rendered in order to qualify for the post. The learned Senior counsel has submitted that rendering of social service is an essential para meter for selection yet respondent No. 3 has been awarded five marks out of 10 by the Selection Committee. According to Mr. Sharma, theLPA No. 17 of 2011 3 appellant in the details concerning experience (P.2 Annexure 'A') has given the names of various Non Governmental Organizations where he has rendered service to the common man. According to him, the appellant has held the post of President, Bharat Vikas Parishad Amritsar Central, Shekhar Bharti, Amritsar, Sanskar Bharti, Peeth Parishad Shankracharya, Chinmiaya Mission and Amritsar Consumer Welfare Forum. Despite his meritorious record, the appellant has been awarded only 6 marks. Mr. Sharma has also submitted that under the heading 'knowledge of law and rules' respondent No. 3 has been awarded 7 marks out of 10 whereas the appellant has again been given step motherly treatment by awarding 6 marks. In total, respondent No. 3 has secured 29 marks and the appellant has secured 28 marks.;