The Supreme Court of India
Credit: PTI Photo
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday held that in the matter of essential qualifications prescribed by the statute for appointment to a public post, 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.
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan quashed the appointment of Dr. Anil Khurana as chairman of National Commission for Homeopathy following a notification of January 16, 2021, holding that he misrepresented his work experience and the Union government made a departure from essential eligibility criteria for considering him for the coveted position.
Upon a petition filed by Karnataka's renowned doctor Amargouda R Patil, represented through senior advocate Devadatt Kamat and advocate Nishanth Patil, the court held the Union government's act of appointing him to the post despite him not having the requisite experience of 10 years as head of the department, suffered from malice in law.
"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," the bench said.
Tested on this touchstone, the appointment of Dr. Khurana failed to pass muster, the bench added.
The bench said it amounts to a fraud on the public to make appointments in departure of either the statutory requirements or a public advertisement.
"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," the bench said.
Citing the National Commission for Homeopathy Act, 2020, the court said the Union government exercised a power for a purpose which is foreign to that for which the power in law is intended.
"What appears to be disturbing is the total lack of procedural fairness in the present case," the bench said.
The court also noted that the law did not confer any such power of relaxation on the appointing authority.
The court set aside the July 31, 2024 judgment by the division bench of the High Court, which set aside the single judge's ruling of January 10, 2014, holding Khurana's appointment cannot be sustained for he did not possess the requisite qualification as a 'leader'.
The Union government led by Additional Solicitor General Vikramjeet Banerjee submitted that Khurana has effectively and capably discharged the duties and performed the functions of his office over the last 42 months and that less than six months remain for him to demit office.
However, referring to Distt Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society Vs M Tripura Sundari Devi (1990), the bench said, "We are afraid, Banerjee’s appeal to our conscience does not commend acceptance."
The court ordered Khurana to step down from the post forthwith. It, however, gave him a week's time to complete his pending assignments without, however, taking any policy decision or decision involving finances. His appointment would stand quashed after seven days with no future benefits, the court said.
"Fresh process be initiated for appointment to the office of Chairperson of the Commission expeditiously. We hope and trust that the selection process will be taken to its logical conclusion, in accordance with law," the bench said.