LexDR. AMARAGOUDA L PATIL versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 574 : 2025 INSC 201 Dr. Amaragouda L Patil v. Union of India & Ors. (Civil Appeal No(s.) 301-303 of 2025) 12 February 2025 [Dipankar Datta* and Manmohan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the challenge to the appointment of the third respondent as the Chairperson of the National Commission for Homeopathy on the ground of not fulfilling the requisite experience of working for ten years as a ‘leader’ in the area of health care. Headnotes† National Commission for Homeopathy Act, 2020 – s.4 Explanation – Appointment to the post of Chairperson of the National Commission for Homeopathy – Eligibility criteria that the Chairperson to have experience of not less than twenty years in the field of homeopathy out of which at least ten years shall be as a leader in the area of health care, as the Head of a Department or the Head of an Organisation – Third respondent, serving as the Director General of Central Council for Research in Homeopathy, appointed as Chairperson – Challenged by the appellant on the ground that the third respondent lacked the requisite experience of working for ten years as a ‘leader’ – Single Judge of the High Court quashed the appointment of the third respondent – However, the Division Bench set aside the order of the Single Judge – Correctness: Held: 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 – Interference in matters relating to selection and appointment must be limited and the Court must not generally substitute the findings of the Search Committee – On facts, the Division Bench erred in holding that this was not a case to * Author [2025] 2 S.C.R. 575 Dr. Amaragouda L Patil v. Union of India & Ors. interfere in, considering, the clear violation of the applicable statutory rules – Selection process suffers from gross illegality and, thus, fails for serious breach of the statutory requirements – There was total lack of procedural fairness – No material before the Search Committee to hold that the third respondent was eligible, having had 10 years’ experience as the ‘Head of a Department’ – Third respondent fell short of the requisite experience – Third respondent misrepresented his work experience for being considered for the coveted position of Chairperson of the Commission – Division Bench grossly erred in failing to consider that mala fides, malice in fact-actual malice, not the only condition for interference, it is open to a Court to interfere when legal malice or malice in law is demonstrated to exist – Act of appointing the third respondent as Chairperson despite he not having the requisite experience suffers from malice in law – Tested on the touchstone of Art.16, the appointment of the third respondent fails to pass muster – Furthermore, it amounts to a fraud on the public to make appointments in departure of either the statutory requirements or a public advertisement, the fraud unravels everything – Thus, the appointment of third respondent quashed – Judgment of Division Bench set aside. [Paras 13, 21, 22, 35, 41, 46, 51, 52, 56, 57, 59, 60] Public appointments – Selection procedure – Selection by experts – Scope of judicial review: Held: Court not to sit in appeal over decisions of selecting bodies, whatever be the nature of the post/office – If the selection made by the selectors-experts in the field, is challenged, a merit review is forbidden – Limited scrutiny of ascertaining the eligibility of the aspirants and the procedure followed, is permissible – However, 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 – If any of the grounds on which judicial review of administrative action is shown to exist, interference on such ground is permissible – It is not an arena in which intervention is completely barred. [Paras 20, 21, 49] Public appointment – Selection procedure – Eligibility criteria – Essential qualifications prescribed by the statute – Relaxation, if permissible: 576 [2025] 2 S.C.R. Digital S
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.