Chandigarh, August 14In a significant order, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the appointment of a woman member of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, after holding that the selection committee’s decision to take into consideration her five years’ experience in home tuitions did not require interference.
In his petition placed before Justice Ritu Bahri, Dinesh Bagga had earlier sought directions for setting aside the appointment order dated December 29, 2009, of Amarpreet Sharma as “whole-time lady member”.
The petitioner had contended that eight woman candidates had appeared for the interview before the selection committee after the advertisement was issued on October 16, 2009. Among other things, the advertisement said the applicant should have an “experience of at least 10 years in dealing with problems relating to economics, law, commerce, accountancy, industry, public affairs or administration.” Appearing for the petitioner, counsel Atul Lakhanpal argued her appointment was not as per the qualification prescribed in the advertisement or under Section 16 of the Consumer Protection Act. Referring to her application, Lakhanpal said her teaching experience was shown to be of five years. Experience of another five years in giving tuitions was also mentioned in an attempt to show a total experience of 10 years.
Dismissing the petition, Justice Bahri ruled: “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 at least 10 years in dealing with problems relating to economics, law, commerce, accountancy, industry, public affairs or administration.
In his petition placed before Justice Ritu Bahri, Dinesh Bagga had earlier sought directions for setting aside the appointment order dated December 29, 2009, of Amarpreet Sharma as “whole-time lady member”.
The petitioner had contended that eight woman candidates had appeared for the interview before the selection committee after the advertisement was issued on October 16, 2009. Among other things, the advertisement said the applicant should have an “experience of at least 10 years in dealing with problems relating to economics, law, commerce, accountancy, industry, public affairs or administration.” Appearing for the petitioner, counsel Atul Lakhanpal argued her appointment was not as per the qualification prescribed in the advertisement or under Section 16 of the Consumer Protection Act. Referring to her application, Lakhanpal said her teaching experience was shown to be of five years. Experience of another five years in giving tuitions was also mentioned in an attempt to show a total experience of 10 years.
Dismissing the petition, Justice Bahri ruled: “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 at least 10 years in dealing with problems relating to economics, law, commerce, accountancy, industry, public affairs or administration.
No comments:
Post a Comment