RAJIVE BHALLA, J. - (1.) THE appellant prays for setting aside of judgment dated 22.07.2011, passed in Civil Writ Petition No.16266 of 2010.
(2.) COUNSEL for the appellant submits that though respondent No.3 does not fulfill the eligibility criteria prescribed by Section 16 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the 'Act'), she has been selected and appointed as a Lady Member of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (for short the 'Commission'). Section 16 of the Act provides that apart from a judicial member, there shall be two other members one of whom shall be a woman. It further provides that a member must not be less than 35 years of age, must possess a bachelor's degree from a recognised university and should be a person of ability, integrity and standing and should have adequate knowledge and experience of at least ten years in dealing with problems relating to economy, law, commerce, accountancy, industry, public affairs and administration. Admittedly, respondent No.3 has five years' teaching experience and five year's experience of private tuitions. The experience as a private tutor cannot, by any stretch of imagination, falls within the eligibility criteria of experience, prescribed by Section 16(1)(b)(iii) of the Act. It is also submitted that the certificate of service shows that respondent No.3 has drawn salary, as a teacher, for November, 1998 and from April 2002 to March, 2003 thereby failing to even fulfill experience of five years as a teacher. It is also urged that reply filed on behalf of Registrar of the Commission is evasive and does not answer whether the appellant was eligible. The reply contains an averment that as experience of teaching and tuition etc. was accepted by the selection committee, respondent No.3 was found suitable for appointment to the post of lady member of the Commission. The reply does not contain any averment as to how a person taking private tuitions falls within the criteria laid down in Section 16(1)(b)(iii) of the Act. It is further argued that though the impugned judgment notices the contentions, raised by the appellant, but have not been dealt with. The impugned judgment merely records that the eligibility is very broad and includes personal knowledge and experience in dealing with day to day problems of life relating to economics etc., and does not prescribe a condition that a person should have experience in any particular service or appointment. The learned Single Judge has failed to discern that Section 16(1) (b)(tii) prescribes an eligibility criteria as opposed to suitability and only, if eligible, can a candidate be considered by the selection committee. The learned Single Judge has not dealt with the question whether a person, who claims experience of five years as a private tutor would be eligible in accordance with the spirit and provisions of Section 16 of the Act. While holding that a Court can only examine whether a candidate is eligible, the learned Single Judge has not answered the question whether private tuition of five years would render respondent No.3 eligible in terms of Section 16(1)(b)(iii) of the Act. Counsel for respondent No.3 submits that respondent No.3 fulfills the eligibility criteria set out by Section 16(1)(b)(iii) of the Act, as she has five years' teaching experience and five year's experience of private tuition. The Act does not exclude a person with experience of private tuitions from the eligibility criteria and merely requires a candidate to have adequate knowledge and experience often years in dealing with problems relating to economics, law, commerce, accountancy, industry, public affairs or administration. The provision is wide enough to include a candidate, who has teaching experience, alongwith experience in private tuitions. A private tutor deals with and helps children in dealing with their day -to -day problems. It is further submitted that a writ for quo warranto is not maintainable at the behest of the appellant as he was neither a candidate nor does he have anything to do with appointment of members of the Commission. Furthermore, the appellant has not placed any material on record to show how the appointment of respondent No.3 affects his rights adversely. Reliance for the latter argument is placed upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.Chandramohan Nair v. George Joseph and others, 2011(2) R.S.J. 42.
(3.) COUNSEL for respondents No. 1 and 2 submits that respondent No.3 has experience of five years in teaching and five years in private tuitions. As her experience was accepted by the selection committee, there is no merit in the appellant's arguments that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in dismissing the writ petition and holding respondent No.3 eligible for appointment as a lady member of the Commission.;