Supreme Court Quashes Appointment Of Chairperson Of National Commission For Homeopathy

The Supreme Court today(February 12) allowed a civil appeal challenging the appointment of Dr. Anil Khurana as the chairperson of the National Commission for Homoeopathy.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan held that the appointment was not in accordance with the law and directed Dr. Khurana to leave the office within a week. Officially, Dr. Khurana has 6 months to demit office.

The order states:

"The Respondent shall stepdown from the office of Chairperson forthwith. By forthwith, we mean a week from today to enable him to complete his assignment however without taking any policy decision involved with finances. Fresh process shall be initiated for appointment of the office of chairperson expeditiously. Benefits received by the 3rd Respondent are not touched. However, future benefit shall enure to him on the basis of service rendered him as chairperson, which stands quashed, beyond seven days from date."

As per the brief facts, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court challenging the appointment of Dr. Khurana and appointment of Dr. K.R.Janardanan Nair as the President of the Medical Assessment and Rating Board of the National Commission for Homeopathy.

The petitioner, who was an applicant for both posts, challenged the appointments on grounds that the two Respondents did not possess the requisite experience required under Section 4(2) and 19 of the National Commission for Homeopathy Act, 2020, respectively.

Section 4(2) defines the qualification of Chairman and read as: "The Chairperson shall be a person of outstanding ability, proven administrative capacity and integrity, possessing a postgraduate degree in Homeopathy from a recognized University and having 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 healthcare delivery, growth and development of Homeopathy or is education."

For the purpose of this section, the term "leader" means the Head of a Department or the Head of an Organisation. Justice N S Sanjay Gowda of the High Court upheld the appointment of Nair but allowed the challenge to the appointment of Dr. Khurana for lacking the years of experience required.

It said: "Thus, in order to be the Chairperson of the National Commission for Homeopathy, a person should have 20 years' experience in the field of Homeopathy and out of these 20 years, he should have been a Head of the Department or the Head of an Organisation in the area of Healthcare delivery, growth and development of Homeopathy or its education...

It is only in respect of the period when Dr.Anil Khurana worked as the Director General (in-charge) from August 2017 to April 2018 and as the Director General from July 2019 to till 2021, can he be considered as a leader, as envisaged under the provisions of the Act. This would indicate that Dr.Anil Khurana was holding leadership only for a period of about four years and therefore, did not satisfy the requirement of Section 4, which required Dr.Anil Khurana to be a leader for at least 10 years as the Head of a Department or 10 years as the Head of an Organisation."

However, this was then set aside by a division bench of Justices N.V. Anjaria and K.V. Aravind of the Karnataka High Court dated August 31, 2022. 

Today, the Supreme Court set aside the order of the division bench while upholding the single judge's order. It said: "We have given our reasons why we are holding that the selection and the appointment of the 3rd Respondent is not in accordance with law. Accordingly, the appeals so far as directed against impugned judgment and order of division bench reversing the order of single judge is accepted."

During the hearings, the Court had called upon the Union of India to submit files pertaining to the selection of Dr. Khurana. The files submitted in sealed cover revealed that Dr. Khurana did not submit supporting documents to support his claim of possessing the requisite experience.

At the same time, the Court came across a Departmental Order of the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of AYUSH, wherein it was claimed that the documents have been duly verified to confirm that Dr. Khurana has requisite experience of 10 years equivalent to Head of Department. 

On perusal of the documents, the Court observed: "The bunch of documents handed over to us have been duly looked into. We record having perused each and every page. What the bunch contains are documents mainly comprising office orders detailing the third respondent's work allocation along with certain certificates of conferences attended and papers authored by him. Our examination of the documents yielded no conclusive evidence to prove the third respondent's experience. On the contrary, there is one document in the bunch which is sufficient to seal the fate of the third respondent. We propose to refer to this document at a later stage of this judgment. ..We have no hesitation to hold, based on reasons assigned hereafter, that there was no material before the Search Committee on the basis of which the third respondent could have been held to be eligible, having had 10 years' experience as the 'Head of a Department'."

On Section 4 of the Act, the Court stated that a 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. 

It said: "No precedent has been placed before us which previously considered the meaning of the term 'Head of a Department' or 'Head of an Organisation' nor are we aware of any such decision and are therefore tasked with providing a definition to these terms in line with the relevant facts of this case. 'Head' in general parlance can be considered to mean an elevated position among other subordinate roles, often in the position of leadership."

The Court interpreted 'head' as referring to a position held by an incumbent who performs the role of a leader and is tasked with making substantive decisions for the department/organisation.

"In the instant case, the contention of the third respondent, supported by the UoI is that he was in a position that would grant him the position of 'Head' since May 2008. They contend that as per the organisational set up of CCRH, the Assistant Director (Homeopathy) is responsible for various sections and cells of the organisation. However, a perusal of the organisational set up reveals that the Assistant Director is not the 'Head' of the Technical Section. The 'Head' of the Technical Section is clearly the Deputy Director General who controls the entire Technical Section," the Court observed.

It added: "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...

The instant case showcases an egregious departure from the mandatory requirements prescribed in Section 4 of the NCH Act and the advertisement for the said position and leaves no option but to interfere with the said selection of the third respondent. The Division Bench faulted the Single Judge by noting that the scope of interference in service matters is extremely limited and that unless mala fides are shown, the Court must not interfere...we respectfully disagree with the Division Bench that this was not a case to interfere in, considering, the clear violation of the applicable statutory rules."

The Court concluded by adding that Dr. Khurana had misrepresented his work experience for being considered for the coveted position of Chairperson. 

"We hasten to add that 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. Tested on this touchstone, the appointment of the third respondent fails to pass muster." 

Case Details: DR. AMARAGOUDA L v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.,|1 C.A. No. 301-303/2025

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 197

Click Here To Read Order