CWP No. 20893 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 20893 of 2010 Date of Decision: November 23, 2010 Rameshwar Dutt Sharma ...... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.D.V.Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Shivani Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. By this petition the petitioner has challenged the appointment of respondent No.3 to the post of member of the District Consumer and Redressal Forum, Amritsar. It may be noticed at the outset that the selection is made by a selection committee consisting of Chairman of the State Consumer Redressal Commission, the Legal Remembrancer and the Principal Secretary, Food and Supplies. Thus there is a retired judge of this Court, a serving senior most judicial officer and a serving senior most civil servant. No allegations of favouritism or mala fide have been made in the petition. Learned Senior counsel, from a perusal of the record, wants to show that the qualifications of the petitioner were more suitable. In CWP No. 20893 of 2010 2 particular he has drawn my attention to the various social activities being carried out by the petitioner and the absence of any such material even in the bio data of respondent No.3. What he further alleges is a vast difference in the field experience of the two candidates. The petitioner has retired as a Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies from the office of Registrar, co- operative Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh while respondent No.3 has retired as Chairperson of Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances PSEB, Patiala. As per learned senior counsel the experience of respondent No.3 was only of a few months and that he had worked as an Engineer having reached the post of Chief Engineer while the petitioner had worked in a quasi judicial capacity in addition to having discharged administrative functions. I have gone through the selection record appended with this petition. Marks have been given by all the three members separately in accordance with the criteria mentioned therein. It is settled law that it is not for this Court to substitute its own judgment for that of the selection committee more particularly when there are no allegations of mala fide or any extraneous considerations having been levelled. Consequently this petition is dismissed. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE November 23, 2010 sunita