Judicial review requires respect for selection procedures unless shown to be perverse; criteria for appointment must reflect elements of 'eminence' and 'outstanding work.'

Mr. Renjith B. Marar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 13262 of 2020, has fairly submitted that the tenure of respondent No. 4 is due to expire on 17.08.2026. In view of the same, it is contended that, at this stage, the issue raised may be left open and be considered at an appropriate time in the future, if it is found that the person selected does not conform to the notification issued under Section 17(2)(a), which mandates that the Chairperson shall be a person of eminence who has rendered outstanding service towards the promotion of the welfare of children.

2. The learned Government Pleader has referred to the affidavit on record and submitted that respondent No. 4 was found to be the most suitable candidate during the selection process initiated under Rule 4 of the Kerala State Commission for Protection of Child Rights Rules, 2012, and that it was on this basis that he came to be appointed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to certain decisions of various High Courts to contend that the criteria of eminence and outstanding work must be of an exceptional nature. He has further rightly invited our attention to Section 17(2)(b), which stipulates that, in respect of the six members of the Commission appointed to assist the Chairperson, one of the prescribed qualifications is that they shall be persons of eminence. Thus, we find that the requirement of eminence is common to both Section 17(2)(a) and Section 17(2)(b). However, Section 17(2) (b), in addition, also incorporates the further attributes of ability, integrity, and outstanding expertise.

4. From the submissions advanced, it appears to us that the qualifications of respondent No. 4 may not fully meet the requirement of being a person of eminence with outstanding credentials. However, the selection procedure itself is not under challenge. In the exercise of judicial review, we are not exercising the appellate jurisdiction and unless the decision is shown to be perverse, the same cannot be set aside. However, in order to obviate any future difficulties or complications, we direct the State respondents to lay down clear criteria for determining who qualifies as a “person of eminence” and the nature of the outstanding work rendered by such person in promoting the welfare of children. The said criteria shall be published before the initiation of the next selection process.

5. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.

Sd/-