There Must Neither Be Deviation From Statutory Requirements Nor Advertisement Inviting Applications Unless Power To Relax Qualifications Exist: SC
The Supreme Court was hearing Civil Appeals concerning the appointment to the high office of Chairperson of the National Commission for Homeopathy (NCH).
The Supreme Court held that there must neither be any deviation from the statutory requirements nor the advertisement inviting applications unless power to relax qualifications exist.
The Court held thus in Civil Appeals preferred against the Appellate Judgment and Order of the Karnataka High Court’s Division Bench, concerning the appointment to the high office of Chairperson of the National Commission for Homeopathy (NCH).
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan observed, “We hold that in the matter of essential qualifications prescribed by the statute, there should neither be any deviation from the statutory requirements nor the advertisement inviting applications while conducting any selection process, unless power to relax the qualifications is shown to exist.”
The Bench reiterated that if any of the grounds on which judicial review of administrative action is shown to exist, interference on such ground would be well-nigh permissible and it is not an arena in which intervention is completely barred.
Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamath appeared on behalf of the Appellant while Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Vikramjeet Banerjee and Senior Advocate Devashish Bharuka appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
Facts of the Case
A process of selection which was interdicted by the Writ Court, was reversed by the Writ Appellate Court premised on an understanding of the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961 framed under Article 77 of the Constitution of India. The National Commission for Homeopathy Act, 2020 (NCH Act) is an enactment of recent origin. Vide notification in 2021, the Ministry of AYUSH (Ayurveda, Yoga, Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, and Homeopathy) invited applications for the post of Chairperson of the Commission. It was indicated in the eligibility criteria that the applicant must have not less than 20 years of experience in the field of homeopathy, out of which at least 10 years as the Head of the Department or Head of an Organisation in the area of Health Care delivery, growth, and development of Homeopathy or its education.
37 aspirants applied for the said post including the Appellant and the 3rd Respondent. On acceptance of recommendation by the Search Committee’s panel, the Central Government conveyed the appointment of the Respondent as the first Chairperson of the Commission. Since the term of his appointment was for four years, the Appellant was due to demit office on July 4, 2025. Being aggrieved by his selection and appointment, the Appellant preferred a Writ Petition before the High Court, stating that the Respondent lacked the requisite experience as per NCH Act. The Single Judge accepted his contention and quashed the Respondent’s appointment. However, the Division Bench overturned the Single Judge’s decision and allowed Intra-Court Appeals. Hence, the Appellant was before the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted that merely because the Search Committee is chaired by the Cabinet Secretary and such committee consists of experts, does not automatically make its recommendation immune from judicial scrutiny; rather, in an appropriate case warranting such scrutiny, the Writ Court would be justified in its interference with the process.
“What appears to be disturbing is the total lack of procedural fairness in the present case. If indeed a doubt had lingered in the mind of the members of the Search Committee as to whether an aspirant is eligible in terms of the requirements of the statute, is it not the duty of the Search Committee, in order to remain above board, to write even a single sentence and record its satisfaction in the minutes that the doubt has been cleared? The answer to this question cannot be in the negative”, it remarked.
The Court further emphasised that the appointment of the Chairperson, who is the head of the Commission, carries significant importance and affects various stakeholders in the field of homeopathy and apart from this, the appointment falls within the field of public employment covered under Article 16 of the Constitution read with Article 14 thereof.
“The instant case showcases an egregious departure from the mandatory requirements prescribed in Section 4 of the NCH Act and the advertisement for the said position and leaves no option but to interfere with the said selection of the third respondent. The Division Bench faulted the Single Judge by noting that the scope of interference in service matters is extremely limited and that unless mala fides are shown, the Court must not interfere”, it said.
The Court, therefore, held that the act of appointing the 3rd Respondent as Chairperson despite he not having the requisite experience, suffers from malice in law. It added that, whenever appointment to a public office is sought to be made, irrespective of the nature of the office, the rules prescribing mandatory eligibility criteria must be applied in a strict manner; after all, every public appointment under Article 16 of the Constitution must be fair, non-arbitrary and reasonable.
“Fraud unravels everything. This Court, under the Constitution, is the protector of the rights of citizens; to allow a proven fraud to be continued is unthinkable since it goes against reason as well as morality. We are afraid, Mr. Banerjee’s appeal to our conscience does not commend acceptance”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the Apex Court accepted the Appeals against the Division Bench’s Judgment, restored that of the Single Judge, quashed the Respondent’s appointment, and dismissed the Appeal questioning rejection of the Appellant’s cross-objection.
Cause Title- Dr. Amaragouda L. Patil v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 201)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamath, Advocates Nishanth Patil, MV Mukunda, Ayush P Shah, Revanta Solanki, Hruday Bajentri, Arijit Dey, and Mehul Kumar Garg.
Respondents: ASG Vikramjeet Banerjee, Senior Advocate Devashish Bharuka, AORs Vanya Gupta, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Advocates Parmod Kumar Vishnoi, Avnish Dave, Kumar Prashant, Raghav Sharma, Sanjeevani Shandilya, Vaibhav Dviwedi, Shreyas Balaji, and Shivendra Singh.
