Case Name: Dr. Amaragouda Patil vs Union of India & Ors
Case Number: Civil Appeal NOS.301–303 OF 2025
Date: February 12, 2025
Quorum: NS Sanjay Gowda
FACTS OF THE CASE
The case revolves the appointment of the Chairperson of the Commission for Homeopathy as per the notification that was made by the Ministry of AYUSH. The notification tells eligibility criteria, with applicants needing to possess a minimum 20, year experience in Homeopathy, among which 10 years in leadership position in the field.
Total 37 candidates had applied for the vacancy, of which the appellant and the third respondent, then the Director General of the Central Council for Research in Homeopathy (CCRH), were strong contenders. The Search Committee examined the applications and made a panel recommending candidates on a merit basis.
The third respondent accepted the appointment, but caused dissatisfaction from the appellant, which prompted him to appeal.
Besides, two office orders made by CCRH were, one ordered a deputy director to hand over technical responsibilities to the third respondent, and another re-distributed duty amongst technical officers with the third respondent placed second in command.
ISSUES
1. whether the selection process for the appointment of the third respondent as Chairperson in accordance with the eligibility criteria?
2. whether the Union of India and third respondent’s claim of his necessary experience in Homeopathy justified?
3. How do prior lower court decisions, especially on the meaning of “leadership” and “experience,” impact the validity of the third respondent’s appointment?
4. What steps are to be taken to make sure that future appointments government organizations follow laid-down laws and eligibility conditions?
LEGAL PROVISION
1. Section 4 of the NCH Act: Composition of Commission.
- Article 16 of the Constitution: Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment.
- Article 77 of the Constitution of India: Conduct of business of the Government of India.
ARGUMENTS
Argument of the Petitioner
The argument is that the appointment and election of the third respondent as Chairman are arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to eligibility requirements stipulated under Section 4 of the NCH Act. Also, selection committee ignored this basic requirement, thus making the appointment legally untenable. In addition, the petitioner objects to the non-transparency of the selection process, pointing out that vital documents concerning the third respondent’s experience were not made available.
Denial of access to such documents contravenes the dictates of natural justice since it denies the petitioner a chance to meaningfully object to the validity of the appointment.
Argument of the Respondent
The respondent in their argument made is that judicial review in issues of selection and appointment is very narrow, especially when the process of selection is undertaken by professionals in the appropriate area. They assert that courts should not play the role of appellate courts over administrative orders unless there is a gross infringement of legal provisions or natural justice principles. Because the selection committee, consisting of experts, had determined the third respondent’s eligibility, judicial intervention in the issue is not justified.
It is contended that, according to the organizational hierarchy of the Central Council for Research in Homeopathy (CCRH), the third respondent had been discharging leadership and administrative functions since May 2008. Even though his designation was that of Assistant Director (Homeopathy), he had been tasked with supervisory and administrative duties, which amply fulfil the requirement of holding the position of a ‘leader’ under the Act. Secondly, the respondents point out that the Search Committee had provisionally accepted the third respondent as eligible, pending documentation verification, which was procedural rather than a substantive grounds of disqualification.
ANALYSIS
The case is based on the construction and enforcement of the NCH Act and, specifically, the Chairperson of the National Commission for Homeopathy (NCH) appointment.
Controversy erupted when Dr. Anil Khurana, Director General of the Central Council for Research in Homeopathy (CCRH), was nominated as Chairperson with doubts whether his experience was as per requirements, notably as a “leader.”
The Division Bench of the High Court rejected the challenge to appointment, holding that the qualifications of the Chairperson could be interfered with only if there was proof of mala fides in the selection process. The Supreme Court, however, differed with the approach of the Division Bench, holding that the mandatory qualifications prescribed in the NCH Act cannot be waived off and that judicial review must be exercised to enforce compliance with statutory norms.
JUDGEMENT
In the present case, the Single Judge of the High Court held on January 10, 2024, that the third respondent was not statutorily experienced as a “leader” to be appointed as the Chairperson of the Commission. The Court questioned the procedural fairness and validity of documents attesting to the third respondent’s eligibility, as the Search Committee did not make records of its reservations or clearances about the third respondent’s qualifications. The documents presented by the government did not conclusively establish the third respondent’s eligibility, and the Court held the decision to appoint him as Chairperson to be flawed.
Lastly, the Court concluded that the appointment process was a violation of the statutory requirements and could not be upheld, finding the action as “malice in law,” or done with the wrong intent or for an improper purpose. The Court held that the appointment must be re-done with correct observance of the law.
CONCLUSION
the Court reiterated the significance of rigid adherence to eligibility in public appointments according to Article 16 of the Constitution. Judicial review of administrative action, although possible, is not excluded and can be sought to enforce fairness, non-arbitrariness, and reasonableness in such a decision.
The Court held that the third respondent’s appointment to the Chairperson post was statutorily irregular in that it lacked the experience necessary as a “leader” or “Head of a Department.” The Court, thus, quashed the appointment and directed the third respondent to vacate the post within seven days. However, the third respondent was permitted to finalize his outstanding assignments but was not allowed to make policy or financial decisions.
Although the third respondent’s benefits were not impaired, the Court held that no future benefits would be payable based on his tenure as Chairperson. The appeal against the dismissal of the cross-objection of the appellant was rejected, and no costs were ordered in the case.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY SHIVRANJNI
