"Cannot Sit In Appeal Over Decision Of Experts": Karnataka HC Rejects Plea Challenging Appointment Of Chairperson Of National Commission for Homoeopathy
|The Karnataka High Court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the appointment to the post of Chairperson, National Commission for Homoeopathy, saying that the Court cannot sit in appeal over the decision of experts.
Two intra Court appeals and cross-objection had challenged the judgment in a batch of writ petitions and as both the appeals and cross objection arose from the same order, they were heard and considered together.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice K.V. Aravind remarked, “Learned Single Judge without considering the scope of interference in the selection process, by holding that the appellant does not possess 10 years of experience as a leader, committed an error in substituting to the experts’ view in the absence of any material on record to demonstrate mala fides. The exercise to find out whether the appellant would qualify as a leader while being technical head is within the prerogative and domain of the Search Committee. The said aspect is the task of the academicians and the experts. The Court cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the experts.”
Senior Advocates Vikram Huilgol and Ashok Haranahalli represented the appellants while Additional Solicitor General of India (ASGI) K. Aravind Kamath, Deputy Solicitor General of India (DSGI) H. Shanthi Bhushan, and Central Government Counsel (CGC) B. Pramod represented the respondents.
Factual Background -
A notification was issued by the Union of India, Ministry of AYUSH inviting applications from eligible candidates to the post of Chairperson of National Commission for Homoeopathy. The appellant and the respondent filed applications and the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet approved appellant’s appointment as the Chairperson. The Search Committee issued Gazette notification appointing the appellant as Chairperson of National Commission for Homoeopathy.
The respondent filed a writ petition challenging the appellant’s appointment and the Single Judge quashed the appellant’s appointment as Chairperson and directed the Centre to take necessary action to appoint Chairperson to National Commission for Homoeopathy afresh by taking note of the observations made by the Single Judge. The original writ petitioner preferred a Cross-objection challenging the direction of the Single Judge to the Centre to take necessary action to appoint Chairperson to the National Commission for Homoeopathy afresh instead to appoint existing applicants to the said post.
The High Court in the above context of the case noted, “The Search Committee being expert body after considering the positions held by the appellant arrived at a conclusion that he fulfills the criteria of 10 years of experience as leader. In the absence of any material placed before the Court to prove that the process of selection by the Selection Committee suffers from mala fides, it is not open to this Court to substitute its opinion as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court (supra).”
The Court observed that the Expert Committee after considering various aspects, recommended the appellant to be eligible as the Chairperson of the National Commission and there is no reason to interfere with the decision of the Selection Committee.
“In view of the analysis above, this Court is of the view that learned Single Judge committed an error in interfering with the order of appointment by substituting the view of the Search Committee being Committee of experts”, it added.
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the appeals and cross-objection and set aside the order of the Single Judge.
Cause Title- Dr. Anil Khurana v. Dr. Amaragouda L Patil & Ors.
Appearance:
Appellants: Senior Advocates Vikram Huilgol, Ashok Haranahalli, Advocates Stefy Maria Sebastian, Manasi Kumar, and B. Vinayaka.
Respondents: ASGI K. Aravind Kamath, DSGI H. Shanthi Bhushan, and CGC B. Pramod.