The court holds that it cannot interfere with the selection made by the Selection Committee unless there is arbitrariness or statutory aberration. The court emphasizes the importance of maintaining the autonomy and integrity of the selection process for public appointments.

ORDER :

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question Notification dated 21-10-2022 issued by the 3rd respondent in selecting and appointing the 5th respondent as the Chair Person of the Karnataka State Commission for Protection of Child Rights (‘the Commission’ for short).

2. The facts, in brief, adumbrated are as follows:

The petitioner and the 5th respondent became applicants pursuant to a notification issued by Government of Karnataka on 31-01-2022 calling for applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the post of Chairperson of the Commission. The applications lead to scrutiny of documents so submitted by both the petitioner and the 5th respondent. The 5th respondent comes to be appointed as the Chairperson of the Commission. The petitioner claims to have come to know of it only when it was published in the newspaper and then applies for all the requisite documents of selection or proceedings of selection under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and having secured them, has knocked at the doors of this Court calling in question entire proceedings that took place leading to the appointment of the 5th respondent as Chairperson of the Commission and has also sought consequential prayer seeking annulment of appointment of the 5th respondent and conduct of fresh selection process in accordance with law. This Court on 15-12-2022 entertaining the writ petition had made the selection and appointment of the 5th respondent to be subject to the result of the petition.

3. Heard Sri Ranganath S.Jois, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri Spoorthy Hegde, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and Sri G.B. Sharath Gowda, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5.

4. The learned counsel Sri Ranganath S.Jois, appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the 5th respondent is least qualified to hold the post of Chairperson of the Commission. It is his submission that the 5th respondent is a political representative of the Bharatiya Janata Party and does not have or has not worked in the field of child rights in comparison to the credentials of the petitioner who is practicing as an Advocate and has been completely involved in the cases concerning juvenile justice appearing before the Juvenile Justice Board from 2009 to 2017 as one of the panel counsel of the District Legal Services Authority, Bengaluru. It is his submission that comparative credentials of the two would clearly lead to the annulment of appointment of the 5th respondent and appointment of the petitioner. He would seek quashment of entire proceedings and the resultant appointment of the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, the 5th respondent/appointee has filed his statement of objections. The learned counsel Sri G.B. Sharath Gowda appearing for the 5th respondent would contend that the 5th respondent long before the selection process itself had demitted membership of a political party and he is also in the field of advocating child rights for a long time and would submit that all the documents that are necessary for appointment of the 5th respondent are considered by the selection committee and appointment is made. He would submit that none of the grounds that are urged in the petition are tenable for the appointment of the 5th respondent to be set aside.

6. The State has also filed its statement of objections. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 4 has contended that the wisdom of the selection committee in appointing the 5th respondent cannot be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless the appointment is contrary to the statute or arbitrariness is writ large in the appointment. He would submit that neither of the two is present in the case at hand. Therefore, the petition should be dismissed.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. In furtherance whereof wha