Can't Sit In Appeal Over Expert Decisions: Karnataka HC Quashes Order Setting Aside Appointment Of National Commission For Homeopathy Chairperson

The Karnataka High Court has quashed an order passed by the single judge bench which set aside the appointment of Dr. Anil Khurana, to the post of Chairperson, National Commission for Homoeopathy.

A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind allowed the appeal filed by Khurana questioning the order dated 10.01.2024, made on the petition filed by DR. Amargouda L Patil.

The court said “Learned Single Judge without considering the scope of interference in the selection process, by holding that the appellant does not possess 10 years of experience as a leader, committed an error in substituting to the experts' view in the absence of any material on record to demonstrate mala fides. The exercise to find out whether the appellant would qualify as a leader while being technical head is within the prerogative and domain of the Search Committee. The said aspect is the task of the academicians and the experts. The Court cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the experts.”

The appellant argued that by considering the recommendation of the Search Committee, the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet approved the appellant's appointment as the Chairperson.

It was stated that the Expert Committee and the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet considered the qualification prescribed under Section 4(2) of the National Commission for Homoeopathy Act, 2020 and appointed the appellant as the Chairperson.

The Central government contended that the search committee had considered the essential qualifications and eligibility criteria of the appellant in terms of Section 4(2) of the Act. It was stated that it was not open to the Single Judge to substitute the opinion of the Search Committee.

As no mala fides or arbitrariness have been alleged against the Search Committee, the controversy regarding appointment of the appellant is outside the purview of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it was argued.

Findings:

The bench on going through the record said “As per the Allocation of Business Rules, the Assistant Director is having independent control over the particular division. On consideration, Assistant Director though below the rank of Director General, the work and responsibilities entrusted to the Assistant Director are independent.”

It noted that the search Committee having examined the qualifications and eligibility found that the different positions held by the appellant would be in the capacity of head of the department. Thus, it was not open to the Court to substitute the opinion unless mala fides are being demonstrated in the process of selection.

Following this it held “The roles and responsibilities conferred on the appellant and the same being discharged, as depicted in the appeal memo, having been considered by the Selection Committee and the roles and responsibilities discharged having been found to be as the head, the appellant would qualify the eligibility criteria as 'leader' as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act of 2020 and as head of the department as per Explanation to Section 4 of the Act of 2020.”

Allowing the appeal the court said that the Single Judge committed an error in interfering with the order of appointment by substituting the view of the Search Committee being a committee of experts.

Appearance: Additional Solicitor General K. Aravind Kamath, a/w Deputy Solicitor General H. Shanthi Bhushan, a/w CGC B. Pramod, for appellant in Writ Appeal No.366/2024.

Senior Advocate Vikram Huilgol, a/w Advocates Stefy Maria Sebastian, Manasi Kumar, for appellant in Writ Appeal No.242/2024.

Senior Advocate Ashok Haranahalli, a/w Advocate B. Vinayaka, for respondent No.1.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 355

Case Title: Dr Anil Khurana AND Dr Amargouda L Patil & Others

Case No: WRIT APPEAL No.242/2024 (S-RES) C/W WRIT APPEAL No.366/2024 (S-RES) WRIT APPEAL CROB. No.2/2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order