Notify Criteria For Nomination Of Members From Each State To Council Of Architecture: Karnataka High Court To Centre

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said till the compliance is made by “The State Government shall notify the criteria for nominations/selections of the member to Council for the ensuing vacancy.”

The court has directed “State Government should now explore the possibility of issuance of Government Order prescribing the criteria for selection/nomination to be a Member of the Council and throw it open to the public to submit their applications for selection to be done, at least on the scrutiny of applications. If no qualified citizen comes to know about the vacancy or the nomination that can be done under the Act, and the nomination happens in the four corners of the powers that be, such action would become arbitrary.”

The direction was given by the court while disposing of the petition filed by one Sharan Desai. He had sought a direction to invite him for an interview for the process of nomination/selection as Member of Council of Architecture of India. He further questioned the nomination/ selection of the 2nd respondent as Member of the Council, representing the State of Karnataka.

The petitioner contended that the term of one Sri B.V.Satish ended on 26-08-2021, who was the representative in the Council from the State of Karnataka. He filed an application submitting his resume appended to it on 04-01-2021, seeking nomination as a Member of the Council representing the Government of Karnataka, in terms of the Architects Act, 1972 . Few more representations were made which did yield any result as no communication/reply was received by the petitioner for eight months, as to what became of his application seeking his nomination as Member of the Council. Thus, he approached the court.

Further it was argued that there is no procedure stipulated under the Act for nominating a Member from each State to the Council and the Council performs several functions and, therefore, the qualification and the criteria for selection ought to have been notified by the Union of India by framing Rules or any other mode for such selection.

The state government sought dismissal of the petition submitting that it is the pleasure of the State to nominate a suitable person as Member of the Council as there is neither any criteria laid down for nomination nor a provision for inviting applications from eligible candidates to be nominated to the Council as Member of respective States is made.

Further, there is no question of conducting an interview for evaluation of nomination qua the qualification and experience before finalising the nomination.

The Union of India, submitted that since there is no criteria stipulated either in the Act or in the Rules, the nominations have gone on since inception and, therefore, the petition should be dismissed.

The bench noted that the Architects Act was promulgated on 31st May, 1972, since the construction activity in the country had expanded to a large extent, qualified Architects were to be regulated by way of the Act and the Rules framed under the Act. Likewise, the Council of Architecture Rules, 1973 was also promulgated on 20-02-1973.

Then referring to various provisions of the Act, Rules and Regulations, the bench observed “The Council has manifold functions so regulated by the afore-quoted Regulations and for such manifold functions, the meetings of the Council become imperative.”

It added “The Members of the Council have a major role to play in the business agenda of the meetings of the Council. The Members have a say in the finance and accounts as dealt in Regulation 26 and have the power of inspection of educational institutions. Though these are Committees constituted under the Regulations, the Committees are constituted from out of the Members of the Council”

Following which it remarked “Therefore, the Member of the Council 27 is an integral part of any function of the Council and not merely a ceremonial person to be a rubber stamp of what the office bearers would decide.”

The court then opined “The seat of a Member is neither ceremonial nor the person, who occupies the said seat becomes a ceremonial or a Member only to lay his rubber stamp on the decisions that are taken. Every Member has an important role to play and every Member attending the meetings whenever called for at the seat, which is in the capital, is paid from the funds of the Council.”

Noting that funds of the Council come from the Government of India. It said “Therefore, a part of public money is granted to the Council, by the Government of India as grants. Therefore, a Member for such Council of Architect has to be nominated qua certain criteria.”

Further the court noted that the Act, the Rules or the Regulations contain certain criteria for appointment to the post of President, Vice-President, Executive Members and Members of the Committee but they are all from among the Members of the Council. For nomination or selection of a Member, there is no criteria indicated.

Thus it expressed “The very nomination would become a tool to pick and choose at the hands of each State Government with qualification or no qualification; experience or no experience.”

Refuting the submission of the state government that it is a discretionary power vested with the Government to nominate a representative Member to the Council under Section 3(3)(f) of the Act.

The bench held “Since the Council performs such manifold functions, which touch upon the interest of public in one manner or the other, the Members being nominated to the said Council without any criteria or even without assessment of the qualification of those nominees qua other candidates would become an unguided and uncanalised power of the State.”

It added “Though the criteria is not laid down under the Act, to make the action of the State become free of any arbitrariness or a pick and choose, it is in the least necessary to notify the vacancy and call for applications from eligible candidates, who would be qualified to be nominated/selected in terms of the Act.”

Finally it said “The petitioner would not get the relief that his nomination should be considered, since time has passed by, he is entitled to, only a direction for consideration of his case in future when the nomination of the 2nd respondent comes to an end.”

Case Title: Sharan Desai v. State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.16114 OF 2021

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 61

Date of Order: 08-02-2023

Appearance: Sharan Desai M—-Party-in-person

AGA Vinod Kumar M for R1.

Deputy Solicitor General of H.Shanhi Bhushan a/w CGC Reshma Thammaiah for R3, R4.