The appointment of the Chairperson of the National Commission for Homeopathy was quashed due to non-compliance with statutory experience requirements, emphasizing strict adherence to eligibility criteria in public appointments.

JUDGMENT :

DIPANKAR DATTA, J.

1. A manifestly flawed process of selection, which was rightly interdicted by the writ court, has since been reversed by the writ appellate court premised on a fundamentally incorrect understanding of the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961¹[Business Rules] framed under Article 77 of the Constitution of India and an utterly mistaken notion of the scope of interference in matters relating to selection and appointment. It has, thus, not surprised us at all that Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, learned Additional Solicitor General, representing the first respondent-Union of India²[UoI] and the second respondent-Search Committee, and Mr. Devashish Bharuka, learned senior counsel appearing for the third respondent, have made little effort to sustain the selection of the third respondent with reference to and/or relying on the said appellate judgment. Instead, the effort has been more towards sustaining the selection and appointment of the third respondent by highlighting the limited scope of judicial review in matters where the experts in the relevant field are the selectors and the process of selection is conducted by them. Much of this later, while we deal with their contentions.

2. The present lis concerns appointment to the high office of ‘Chairperson’ of the National Commission for Homeopathy³[Commission].

3. Facts giving rise to these three appeals from the appellate judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka⁴[High Court], which are undisputed, lie in a narrow compass.

I. The National Commission for Homeopathy Act, 2020⁵[NCH Act] is an enactment of recent origin. Section 4(1) of the NCH Act ordains that the Commission shall be comprised of a Chairperson, seven ex-officio Members and nineteen part-time Members. Section 4(2) specifically mandates that the Chairperson of the Commission shall be a person of outstanding ability, proven administrative capacity and integrity, possessing a postgraduate degree in Homoeopathy from a recognised University and having experience of not less than twenty years in the field of Homoeopathy, out of which at least ten years shall be as a leader in the area of healthcare delivery, growth and development of Homoeopathy or its education (emphasis supplied by us). The Explanation to Section 4 defines the term “leader” as the Head of a Department or the Head of an Organisation (emphasis supplied by us). Section 5, inter alia, prescribes that the Central Government shall appoint the Chairperson on the basis of the recommendation of a Search Committee consisting of the Cabinet Secretary as the Chairperson [clause (a)], three expert members to be nominated by the Central Government [having qualifications as described in clauses (b) and (c)], a nominee of the Central Government [having qualifications as described in clause (d)] and the Secretary to the Government of India⁶[GoI], in charge of AYUSH to be the convenor-member [clause (e)].

II. Vide Notification F. No. 21011/12/2020-EP(III) dated January 16, 2021, the Ministry of AYUSH invited applications for the post of Chairperson of the Commission. Inter alia, the Notification while indicating the eligibility criteria provided that the applicant must have not less than 20 years of experience in the field of Homeopathy, out of which at least 10 years as the Head of the Department or Head of an Organisation in the area of Health Care delivery, growth and development of Homeopathy or its education.

This was entirely in consonance with the relevant statute and all concerned understood what the requirements were.

III. Responding to this notification, 37 (thirty-seven) aspirants applied for appointment to the office of the Chairman. The appellant and the third respondent, who was serving as the Director General, Central Council for Research in Homeopathy⁷[CCRH] were two of the several aspirants.

IV. For a ready reference, the profile of the third respondent is reproduced hereinbelow: