JUDGMENT : SHAJI P. CHALY, J. This appeal is preferred by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 4723 of 2020 challenging the judgment dated 04.02.2021, whereby the following reliefs sought for by the writ petitioner were declined: 1. To issue a writ of certiorari calling for the originals of Ext.P4 and to quash the same to the extent the 4th respondent’s name is included therein. 2. To issue a writ of certiorari calling for the originals of Ext.P5 and to quash the same. 3. To declare that the 4th respondent has no prescribed qualification to be appointed as member of the District Consumer Forum, Kottayam in view of the fact that he is not having the adequate knowledge and experience of at least 10 years in the fields specified in Section 10(1)(b)(iii) of the Consumer Protection Ac, 1986. 4. To issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction to the first respondent to appoint the petitioner as member of the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Kottayam in pursuance of Ext.P1 notification. 2. Brief material facts for the disposal of the appeal are as follows: State of Kerala—the first respondent, had issued Ext. P1 notification inviting applications for appointment to the post of a Full Time Member (General) at the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kottayam. Accordingly, the appellant applied for the post before the District Collector, Kottayam—3rd respondent, in the prescribed format. According to the appellant, he had the requisite qualifications as per Ext. P1 notification. Anyhow, pursuant to the application, the appellant was invited to attend an interview. The assumption made by the appellant about the interview is that he has performed well in the interview and the second respondent i.e., the Selection Committee for recommendation of the members of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum found that the appellant and the 4th respondent namely K.M. Anto were eligible to be appointed to the said post and accordingly, a list comprising the appellant and the 4th respondent was forwarded to the Government, evident from Ext. P4 minutes. However, the first respondent, by Ext. P5 order, appointed the 4th respondent as the member of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kottayam. 3. P4 minutes. However, the first respondent, by Ext. P5 order, appointed the 4th respondent as the member of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kottayam. 3. The case projected by the appellant was that the 4th respondent is a retired Non Cadre Police Officer and he is not having adequate knowledge and experience of at least 10 years in dealing with the problems relating to economics, law, commerce, accountancy, industry, public affairs or administration as is contemplated under Section 10(1)(b)(iii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ('Act, 1986' for brevity). It was also submitted that there is no practice of appointing a retired non Cadre Police Officer to the post of Member of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and other judicial or quasi judicial forum. 4. The learned single Judge, after considering the pros and cons of the issue, has found that the appellant has not made out any case so as to interfere with the selection made by the Government in accordance with Ext. P1 notification issued for the purpose and accordingly, dismissed the writ petition. 5. We have heard Sri. B. Unnikrishnan appeared in person and the learned Senior Government Pleader Sri. Tek Chand for the State and Sri. Peter Jose Christo for the 4th respondent, and perused the pleadings and materials on record. 6. The sole question to be considered is whether any manner of interference is warranted to the judgment of the learned single Judge. The case put forth by the appellant is that the appellant is more qualified than the 4th respondent and he should have been appointed to the post of Member, Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. The said question was considered by the learned single Judge elaborately after taking into account the rival submissions put forth by the parties and also taking into account Section 10(1)(b)(iii) of the Act, 1986. Since a contention was raised by the 4th respondent based on the Kerala Police Manual, 1969, paragraphs 215 and 216 of Volume I of the Police Manual were also appreciated by the learned single Judge and arrived at the conclusion that the experience gained by the 4th respondent by working as a Deputy Superintendent of Police and Superintendent of Police amply satisfies the requirements under Section 10(1)(b) of the Act, 1986. 7. 7. It was also found by the learned single Judge that a perusal of the Police Manual would show that a person in the rank of Superintendent of Police has as his duty, to promote good police public relations and a Superintendent of Police is expected to ensure by constant supervision that the prevention, investigation and detection of crime in his District are properly and efficiently dealt with by the Force under his command. It was further found that the Police Officer has also to undertake the study of crimes and criminals in his district as a whole and further that he should take steps to ensure that the prosecuting and investigating officers show due interest in the prosecution of cases in court and that no cases fail on account of apathy or neglect on the part of the prosecuting agency or investigation staff. 8. The basic argument advanced by the appellant was that he being a member of the Panchayat and his experience in the other offices held by him, was more competent than the 4th respondent, who did not have any experience at all in administrative capacity as a Deputy Superintendent of Police or Superintendent of Police enabling him to qualify to the post in contemplation of Section 10(1)(b)(iii) of the Act, 1986. 9. In our considered opinion, the selection process was the absolute domain of the State Government in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 1986 and the qualifications prescribed in Ext. P1 notification. There is no case for the appellant that the 4th respondent was not qualified in terms of Ext. P1 notification. However, the case projected by the appellant is that the 4th respondent, having retired as a police officer, has no sufficient experience in contemplation of the aforesaid provision of the Act, 1986. Anyhow, on the basis of the arguments advanced by the 4th respondent, the learned single Judge has appreciated the provisions of the Kerala Police Manual, 1969 Volume I and has found that the provisions show that there are sufficient administrative works undertaken by the police officer and during that process, he had sufficient contacts with the public and he had his opportunity to prosecute the cases in court so as to ensure that the culprits and criminals are punished by the courts in accordance with law. 10. 10. We are also of the view that the selection was conducted by the Selection Committee taking into account the performance of the candidates in the interview and also taking into account the requirements contained under the provisions of the Act, 1986. Having appreciated the factual circumstances put forth by the 4th respondent in regard to the experience he gained as a Deputy Superintendent of Police as also a Superintendent of Police, it cannot be said that he is not qualified in terms of the provisions of Act, 1986. Anyhow, the subject issue was considered by the learned single Judge after taking into account all the factual and legal circumstances and has arrived at the finding that no grounds are made out by the appellant to interfere with the selection process undertaken by the select committee in accordance with Ext. P1 notification issued. In fact, the appellant never had a case that the selection process was, in any manner, malafide or bad due to some extraneous circumstances, and therefore, it is well settled that a writ court considering a selection process shall not wear the garb of the select committee and attempt to explore the manner in which the selection was conducted in order to arrive at any conclusions. We are also of the view that unless and until it was established before the writ court that unprecedented approach was made to illegally appoint the 4th respondent, the writ court was not expected to sit over the conclusions arrived at by the administrative authority and to arrive at a different conclusion so as to upset the selection process and overturn the appointment made. In short, we have no hesitation to hold that the learned Single Judge did not err in arriving at the conclusions, and the findings rendered are absolutely in accordance with law. 11. We are also of the view that the appellate court, while considering the judgment of a writ court, need only consider whether there was any jurisdictional error or other legal infirmities so patent on the part of the learned single Judge in considering the material aspects raised in the writ petition. 11. We are also of the view that the appellate court, while considering the judgment of a writ court, need only consider whether there was any jurisdictional error or other legal infirmities so patent on the part of the learned single Judge in considering the material aspects raised in the writ petition. Having considered the rival submissions and taking into account the facts and figures, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant has failed to make out any case so as to interfere with the judgment of the learned single Judge in an intra court appeal filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958. Needless to say, the writ appeal fails and accordingly, it is dismissed.