IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.20067 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 21.01.2010. Sukhdev Singh Nagpal .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.P.P.S.Duggall, 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? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to set-aside the selection and consequential appointments of respondent Nos.6 to 10 as Presidents of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums in the State of Punjab. The petitioner's challenge is two-folds. Firstly, he urges that no reservation for Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes has been provided by the State of Punjab in consonance with the spirit of Article 335 of the Constitution. Secondly, the petitioner asserts himself to be more meritorious as compared to the private respondents. It is the petitioner's case that respondent No.9 is not a practicing Advocate and has been C.W.P.No .20067 of 2009 (O&M) 2 selected allegedly for the reasons other than the merit. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and keeping in view the scant material on record, vague, baseless and evasive averments made in the writ petition, I do not find any ground to entertain this writ petition at this stage. The fact that no reservation has been provided while filling up the office of the President, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums, was known to the petitioner at the time when the advertisement was issued and applications were invited. He did not challenge the advertisement rather applied in response thereto and took a chance for his own selection. The prescription of reservation is a matter of policy for which, the petitioner ought to have approached the State Government. Similarly, the disputed questions regarding self- assessed comparative merit cannot be gone into by this Court and the appropriate recourse for the petitioner would have been to represent and highlight the alleged deficiencies in the eligibility or merit of respondent No.9. In any case, the petitioner cannot impugn the selection of other private respondents on the strength of certain allegations made against respondent No.9. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent authority. Dasti. 21-01-2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE