Chandigarh, September 11
Just about two months after a Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana HC upheld the appointment of Amarpreet Sharma as "whole time lady member" of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, a Division bench issued notice of motion on an appeal challenging the order.
Referring to the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, appellant Dinesh Bagga told the Division Bench that Sharma was required to have 10 years experience for the post, whereas her experience is of five years teaching and tuition work. Upholding her appointment, the Single Judge had ruled 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 the Single Judge, Bagga had earlier sought directions for setting aside the appointment order dated December 29, 2009, of Amarpreet 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 "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 tuition was also mentioned in an attempt to show a total experience of 10 years. Justice Bahri dismissed the petition.
Just about two months after a Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana HC upheld the appointment of Amarpreet Sharma as "whole time lady member" of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, a Division bench issued notice of motion on an appeal challenging the order.
Referring to the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, appellant Dinesh Bagga told the Division Bench that Sharma was required to have 10 years experience for the post, whereas her experience is of five years teaching and tuition work. Upholding her appointment, the Single Judge had ruled 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 the Single Judge, Bagga had earlier sought directions for setting aside the appointment order dated December 29, 2009, of Amarpreet 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 "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 tuition was also mentioned in an attempt to show a total experience of 10 years. Justice Bahri dismissed the petition.
No comments:
Post a Comment