IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 15132 of 2006 Date of Decision: January 24, 2008 Gaje Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. V.K. Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Addl. AG, Haryana, for the respondents. M.M. KUMAR, J. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for setting aside the selection/appointment of Part Time Members of the District Consumer Forums at Ambala, Bhiwani, Faridabad, Yamuna Nagar, Fatehabad, Gurgaon, Jind, Karnal, Kaithal, Kurukshetra, Narnaul, Panchkula, Rewari, Jhajjar, Rohtak, Sirsa and Sonepat in the State of Haryana (P-4). A further prayer has been made to restrain respondent Nos. 4 and 5 from joining as Part Time Members in the District Consumer Forum, Kurukshetra. Still further it has been prayed that all such persons, who have not applied C.W.P. No. 15132 of 2006 for the concerned District against which their selection has been made, may also be restrained from joining in other District Forums. Brief facts of the case are that on 25.7.2005, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 issued an advertisement inviting applications for filling up 28 posts of Part time Members in various District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums in the State of Haryana (P-1). The advertisement postulated that those candidates should apply who are persons of ability, integrity and standing and have adequate knowledge and experience of at least ten years in dealing with, problems relating to economics, law, commerce, accountancy, industry, public affairs or administration, be not less than thirty five years of age as on 1st July, 2005 and possess a Bachelor’s Degrees from a recognised University and is not otherwise disqualified. The provisions contained in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) and the Haryana Consumer Protection Rules, 2004 (for brevity, ‘the Rules’) were to be taken into consideration for appointment to the aforesaid posts. There were two vacancies of Part Time Members (one for Female and one for Male) available in the District Consumer Forum, Kurukshetra. It is claimed that approximately 10 persons including the petitioner applied for appointment as Part Time Members in the District Consumer Forum, Kurukshetra. On 19.12.2005, interview letters were issued to the petitioner and respondent Nos. 4 and 5 by the Secretary, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (P-3). On 6.9.2005, a select list was issued, which contained names of 12 persons each of Male and Female candidates, for their appointment as Part Time Members in different Consumer Forum. The names of 2 C.W.P. No. 15132 of 2006 respondent Nos. 5 and 4 appeared at Sr. No. 2 and Sr. No. 9 in the respective list of Male and Female candidates. The name of the petitioner, who admittedly participated in the selection process, however, did not find mention in the select list. The petitioner has filed the instant petition primarily on the ground that in column No. 4 of the Application Form, the name of the District Consumer Forum for which the applicant has applied, was to be mentioned. There was no option given to an applicant to opt for more than one station. Meaning thereby a candidate cannot be appointed in any of the District other than which he has opted in his/her application. It has been claimed by the petitioner that respondent No. 5 is resident of Ambala City and he applied for the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala, whereas he has been appointed against the post of Part Time Member at District Kurukshetra. It has further been submitted that respondent No. 4 has opted for District Karnal, whereas she has been appointed for female Part Time Member at Kurukshetra. The stand of the respondents in para 3 of the written statement filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 is that in column 4 of the application form merely information was sought from the candidates regarding the name of the District Consumer Forum for which he/she has applied, primarily with a view to accommodate the candidate at such a district. The information sought per se was not to vest any right to the candidate to be posted in that District Consumer Forum because there could always be administrative exigencies which may warrant that the candidate who did not opt for a particular district may have to be posted in some other district. Even otherwise, 3 C.W.P. No. 15132 of 2006 it has been asserted in para 3 of the preliminary submissions that the cadre of the part-time members of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums was not district cadre and candidates from all over the country were eligible to apply as per the advertisement. It has further been pointed out that the post of part-time member is a tenure post for a specific period of five years and only honorarium is payable to them as per the provisions of Rule 3(1) of the Rules. Having heard learned counsel for the parties we are of the considered view that this petition lacks merit. Merely because the selected members have expressed in column 4 that he/she may be appointed in a particular District Consumer Forum would not mean that he/she could not be appointed in any other District Consumer Forum. There may be administrative exigencies to appoint a person in another district. The cadre of part-time members of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums in Haryana is not a district cadre but it extends to the whole State. Moreover, the advertisement has not restricted the applicants either from particular district or even from the State of Haryana alone. The applicants from all over the country were eligible to apply and persons of ability, integrity and standing with adequate experience of 10 years in dealing with the problems relating to economics, law and commerce etc. were to be considered as per the provisions of the Act and Rules. We are further of the view that the petitioner knowing fully well the import of the advertisement and the fact that the cadre of part-time members of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums is not a district cadre as per the Act and Rules, had applied and taken a chance by appearing in the selection process. He is 4 C.W.P. No. 15132 of 2006 making grievance only after having failed. In other words, had he been selected under the same advertisement and the same arrangements, he would have been happier and would not have expressed any grievance. It is in these circumstances that principle of estoppel have been developed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in numerous judgments holding that once a person has participated in the selection process then in the event of his non-selection, he cannot agitate about those matters, which were fully within his knowledge. In that regard reliance may be placed in the cases of Madan Lal v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, (1995) 3 SCC 486; Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla, (2002) 6 SCC 127; and K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala, (2006) 6 SCC 395. As a sequel to the above discussion, we find no merit in the instant petition and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (T.P.S. MANN) January 24, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 5