Supreme Court judgment concerning the appointment of the Chairperson for the National Commission for Homeopathy. The core issue revolves around the eligibility criteria for the position, specifically the requirement of having ten years’ experience as a “leader” (defined as “Head of a Department” or “Head of an Organisation”). The Court examines whether the chosen candidate, the third respondent, truly met this statutory requirement, ultimately finding that his appointment was illegal due to a lack of proper qualifications and a flawed selection process. The judgment overturns a prior appellate court decision and reinstates the initial quashing of the appointment, emphasizing the importance of strict adherence to statutory rules in public appointments and the concept of “malice in law” when an authority exercises power for an unauthorized purpose.
(A) National Commission for Homeopathy Act, 2020, Section 4(1) – Constitution of India, Articles 14, 77 – Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961 – Service Law – Eligibility – Qualification of experience – Selection – Appointment office of ‘Chairperson’ of the National Commission for Homeopathy – Held that there is 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 – Appointment of the Chairperson, who is the head of the Commission carries significant importance and affects various stakeholders in the field of homeopathy – Apart from this, the appointment falls within the field of public employment covered under Article 16 of the Constitution read with Article 14 thereof – Section 4 clearly lays down that the candidate must have minimum twenty years of experience in the field of homeopathy, out of which at least ten must be as a ‘leader’/ – These eligibility requirements cannot be waived off by the administration, since they are mandatory requirements – Held that the third respondent was never the “Head of a Department” at least any time before taking over entire charge of the Technical Section in terms of the Office Order dated October 5, 2011 and, therefore, fell short of the requisite experience of 10 years – The conclusion recorded by the Secretary, GoI that the third respondent did have the requisite experience as ‘Head of a Department’, which is nothing but his ipse dixit, is plainly suspect and vulnerable on the face of all these three orders and has to be declared to be a conclusion which suffers from gross perversity – NCH Act did not confer any such power of relaxation on the appointing authority – Held that the Division Bench grossly erred in failing to consider that mala fides, in the sense of malice in fact, i.e., actual malice, is 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 – The act of appointing the third respondent as Chairperson despite he not having the requisite experience suffers from malice in law- Appointment of the third respondent stands quashed – The third respondent shall step down from the office of Chairperson of the Commission forthwith – Benefits received by the third respondent are not touched; however, no future benefit shall enure to him on the basis of the service rendered by him as Chairperson, which stands quashed, beyond seven days from date.
(Para 21, 28, 35, 36, 47, 52, 60, 61)
(B) Constitution of India, Article 14 and 16 – Service Law – Judicial review of appointment – Appointment office of ‘Chairperson’ of the National Commission for Homeopathy – Judicial review – It is not for the Court to sit in appeal over decisions of selecting bodies, whatever be the nature of the post/office – If the selection made by the selectors, who are experts in the field, is laid to a challenge, a merit review is forbidden; what is permissible is, inter alia, a limited scrutiny of ascertaining the eligibility of the aspirants and the procedure followed, that is, whether a duly qualified aspirant has been selected and whether the procedure followed was fair and in consonance with statutory rules or not – 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.
(Para 20)
Dr. Amaragouda L Patil V. Union Of India & Ors.
Supreme Court: 2025 INSC 201: (DoJ 12-02-2025)
