C.W.P. No. 16266 of 2010 [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 16266 of 2010 Date of Decision: July 22,2011 Dinesh Bagga ............................................ Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ........................ Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajwant Singh Chahal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.S.Grewal, Addl. A.G. Punjab. for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. A.K.Chopra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. N.D.Kalra, Advocate for respondent No.3. ... RITU BAHRI, J. This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution is for issuance of a writ of quo warranto for setting aside the appointment order dated 29.12.2009 (Annexure P2) of respondent No.3 as whole time Lady Member of Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal C.W.P. No. 16266 of 2010 [ 2 ] Commission, Chandigarh. On 16.10.2009 one post of whole time Lady Member of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, was advertised (Annexure P1). The eligibility criteria as per the advertisement is as under:- “ ELIGIBILITY i) be not less than thirty five years of age. ii)Possess a Bachelor's degree from a recognized University, and iii)Be persons of ability, integrity and standing, and have adequate knowledge and experience of atleast ten years in dealing with problems relating to economics, law, commerce, accountancy, industry, public affairs or administration.” Eight lady candidates appeared for the interview before the Selection Committee and vide order dated 29.12.2009 (Annexure P2) respondent No.3-Amarpreet Sharma was appointed. Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, Sr. Advocate, has argued that the appointment of respondent No.3 is not as per the qualification prescribed in the advertisement or under Section 16 of the Consumer Protection Act. He has referred to the application made by respondent No.3 (Annexure P4) in which the teaching experience is shown to be of 5 years C.W.P. No. 16266 of 2010 [ 3 ] and 5 years in giving tution has been mentioned making it a total of 10 years experience. The experience Certificate attached with the application certified that she has been paid salary for one month in November 1998 and one year during the financial year 2002-03 as a Teacher in Shivalik Public School. These Certificates do not reflect the experience of 5 years. As per information received under the RTI Act respondent No.3 has not attached 10 years experience certificate. He argued that the appointment be quashed on the short ground that necessary experience certificates were not accompanied the application and she was, thus, ineligible to be appointed. Mr. A.S.Grewal, Addl. A.G. Punjab, has argued that in the application form respondent No.3 had mentioned 5 years tution and 5 years teaching experience which has been considered and believed by the statutory Selection Committee as on 7.2.2009 when the interview was held. He vehemently argued that after going through the certificates of salary which respondent No.3 had attached the Selection Committee had believed that she was teaching in the School. As the tution work was done by her privately she has not attached any experience certificate. Mr. A.K.Chopra, counsel for respondent No.3, has referred to the qualification under Rule 16(b)(3) and contends that the eligibility criteria prescribed only adequate C.W.P. No. 16266 of 2010 [ 4 ] knowledge and experience of 10 years in dealing with problems relating to economics, law, commerce, accountancy, industry, public affairs or administration. He has referred to the experience certificate issued by Shivalik Public School dated 20.1.2007 (Annexure R3/4) with written statement which goes to show that she has worked in this School from 18.4.1998 to 22.3.2003. She has done her Masters in Economics and was eligible to be appointed to the said post in view of her experience in teaching. There is no allegation of mala fide against the Selection Committee in the petition. The petition is liable to be dismissed in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in S.Chandramohan Nair v. George Joseph and others 2011(2) RSJ 42. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The record of the selection was produced. Petitioner has sought a writ of quo warranto to quash the appointment of respondent No.3 who has been appointed as Lady Member of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh. A writ of quo warranto can only be issued when the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules. In B.Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Employees' Association and others (2006) 11 SCC 731 : (AIR 2006 SC 3106 : 2006 AIR C.W.P. No. 16266 of 2010 [ 5 ] SCW 4515), this Court held: “49. The law is well settled. The High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction in a matter of this nature is required to determine, at the outset, as to whether a case has been made out for issuance of a writ of quo warranto. The jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of quo warranto is a limited one which can only be issued when the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules.” In State of Mysore and another v. Syed Mahmood and otehrs, (1968) 3 SCR 363 : AIR 1968 SC 1113, it was held that suitability or otherwise, appointing authority is the best person and the court cannot issue a positive writ without giving the authority/Government opportunity in the first instance to consider his/her claim for promotion. In Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto and Others AIR 2010 Supreme Court 3515 the Supreme Court had examined the case of appointment of Chairman of Jharkhand State Electricity Board. Mr. Hari Bansh Lal was appointed as Chairman. His appointment was challenged as he was 19 years of age, was a person of doubtful integrity and was appointed Chairman without following the Rules and procedure. It was alleged that Mr. Hari Bansh Lal had retired and at his age he was not in a position to perform his duties as Chairman. He lacked knowledge of advance C.W.P. No. 16266 of 2010 [ 6 ] technologies in the field of electricity and a prayer for his removal was made by filing a PIL. The appointment of Mr. Hari Bansh Lal was quashed by the High Court. The Supreme Court while relying on the judgments as mentioned above came to the conclusion that there was no age limit prescribed in the Rules for appointment to the post of Chairman. He fulfiled all the other qualifications and had rendered good service with the State Government. The order of the High Court was set aside and a direction was given that Hari Bansh Lal be continued as Chairman of the Electricity Board. In this judgment the Supreme Court has considered the scope of issuing writ of quo warranto when the appointment is sought in relation to service matters. The High Court has to satisfy that the appointment is not contrary to the rules. For issuing a writ of quo warranto the High Court has to satisfy that the appointment is contrary to the rules. Suitability or otherwise of a candidate for appointment to a post in Government service is the function of the appointing authority and not of the Court unless the appointment is contrary to statutory provisions/rules. As per the advertisement and Section 16 of the Consumer Protection Act the qualification for appointment to the post of Lady Member is as under:- “16. Composition of the State Commission: (1) Each State Commission shall consist of- C.W.P. No. 16266 of 2010 [ 7 ] (a) a person who is or has been a Judge or a High Court, appointed by the State Government, who shall be its President: 1[Provided that no appointment under this clause shall be made except after consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court]; (2)(b) not less than two, and not more than such number of members, as may be prescribed, and one of whom shall be a woman, who shall have the following qualifications, namely;- (i)be not less than 35 years of age; (ii)possess a bachelor's degree from a recognized University; and (iii)be persons of ability, integrity and standing, and have adequate knowledge and experience of atleast ten years in dealing with problems relating to economics, law, commerce, accountancy, industry, public affairs or administration.” Respondent No.3 fulfils all the conditions. At the time of filing the application respondent No.3 had written that she has 5 years teaching experience in Shivalik Public School and 5 years experience in home tution. She has attached two certificates showing that salary had been disbursed to her by the school in November 1998 and the C.W.P. No. 16266 of 2010 [ 8 ] second certificate showing salary disbursed from April 2003 to March 2004. As per Section 16 apart from the educational qualification the last condition is that the person should be of ability, integrity and standing and have adequate knowledge and experience of atleast ten years in dealing with problems relating to economics, law, commerce, accountancy, industry, public affairs or administration. This definition is very broad and includes personal knowledge and experience in dealing with day to day problems of life relating to economics etc. There is no condition that a person should have experience in a particular service or appointment. It is the case of the petitioner that the two certificates attached showing that her salary has been paid for November 1998 and then with effect from April 2003 to March 2004 do not satisfy the condition of experience as prescribed in the Rules. This argument carries no weight. Respondent No.3 had appeared in the interview and members of the Selection Committee were at liberty to seek any information from her in relation to her experience of teaching. They have accepted on the basis of certificates attached that she has 5 years teaching experience. As far as giving home tution, there was no requirement of submitting any certificate of experience. The Selection Committee was satisfied that respondent No.3 had 10 years of experience of teaching school children. This was the requirement of C.W.P. No. 16266 of 2010 [ 9 ] eligibility as per the qualification prescribed in Section 16. It is the appointing authority who has to judge the suitability or otherwise of a candidate. The Court is required to see whether a candidate fulfil the eligibility criteria or not. In the present case respondent No.3 has attached her experience certificate of the year 2007 (Annexure R3/4) issued by Shivalik Public School stating that she has taught in the school from 18.4.1998 to 22.3.2003. Petitioner has not disputed this certificate by filing any rejoinder. At best the certificate makes the respondent No.3 eligible to be appointed as Lady Member. The Selection Committee has accepted the experience of teaching and tution etc. has thus found respondent No.3 suitable for appointment to the post of Lady Member and therefore the order dated 29.12.2009 does not call for any interference by this Court. In the facts of the present case, respondent No.3 was eligible to be appointed as whole time Lady Member of Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The writ petition is dismissed. 22.7.2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Rupi JUDGE