Supreme Court Invalidates Appointment of Chairperson, National Commission for Homeopathy due to Ineligibility: Dr. Amaragouda L Patil vs. Union of India (2025)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 12th February, 2025

Citation: 2025 INSC 201

Judges: Dipankar Datta, J., Manmohan, J.

Was the selection process for the Chairperson of the National Commission for Homeopathy (NCH) flawed? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in Dr. Amaragouda L Patil vs. Union of India & Ors., examining the appointment process and eligibility criteria for such a high office. The core issue revolved around whether the selected candidate met the statutory requirements for experience as a leader in the field of homeopathy. Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan, constituting the bench, delivered the judgment, ultimately setting aside the appointment due to irregularities in the selection process and the candidate’s ineligibility.

Case Background

The case originated from the appointment of the Chairperson of the National Commission for Homeopathy (NCH). The National Commission for Homeopathy Act, 2020 (NCH Act) outlines the qualifications and selection process for this role. The appellant, Dr. Amaragouda L Patil, challenged the appointment of the third respondent, arguing that the selected candidate did not meet the eligibility criteria as stipulated in Section 4 of the NCH Act.

Specifically, Section 4(2) of the NCH Act mandates that the Chairperson should be a person of outstanding ability, proven administrative capacity, and integrity, possessing a postgraduate degree in Homoeopathy with at least twenty years of experience, including ten years as a leader in healthcare delivery, growth, or development of Homoeopathy or its education. The Explanation to Section 4 defines “leader” as the Head of a Department or the Head of an Organisation.

In January 2021, the Ministry of AYUSH invited applications for the Chairperson position, mirroring the eligibility criteria of the NCH Act. Thirty-seven aspirants applied, including the appellant and the third respondent, who was then serving as the Director General of the Central Council for Research in Homeopathy (CCRH).

The Search Committee, formed to recommend candidates, initially noted that it was “not clear” whether the third respondent possessed the requisite experience as Head of a Department or Head of an Organisation. Despite this, the committee recommended a panel of three aspirants, with the third respondent at the top.

Subsequently, the Central Government appointed the third respondent as the Chairperson in July 2021. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka, challenging the appointment based on the third respondent’s alleged lack of leadership experience as defined by the NCH Act.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka, in a judgment dated January 10, 2024, accepted the appellant’s argument that the third respondent lacked the requisite experience as a ‘leader’ and, therefore, his appointment was not in conformity with the statutory provisions. The Single Judge quashed the appointment but did not direct the appointment of the appellant, instead directing the Search Committee to redo the appointment process.

The Union of India (UoI) and the third respondent appealed this decision. The appellant filed a cross-objection challenging the rejection of his claim for appointment. The Division Bench, on July 31, 2024, overturned the Single Judge’s decision, holding that the Search Committee had examined the qualifications and eligibility and that the court could not substitute its opinion unless mala fides were demonstrated. The Division Bench also noted that an Assistant Director could have independent control over a particular division, thus potentially satisfying the leadership requirement.

Legal Framework

The primary legal framework for this case is the National Commission for Homeopathy Act, 2020 (NCH Act). Key provisions include:

• Section 4(1): Specifies the composition of the Commission, including a Chairperson, seven ex-officio Members, and nineteen part-time Members.
• Section 4(2): “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”
• Explanation to Section 4: Defines the term “leader” as the Head of a Department or the Head of an Organisation.
• Section 5: Prescribes that the Central Government shall appoint the Chairperson based on the recommendation of a Search Committee.

The Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961, framed under Article 77 of the Constitution of India, were also referenced, although the Supreme Court noted that the High Court incorrectly understood their application in this context.

The case also invokes Article 14 (equality before the law) and Article 16 (equality of opportunity in matters of public employment) of the Constitution of India, emphasizing that public appointments must be fair, non-arbitrary, and reasonable.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellant (Dr. Amaragouda L Patil):

• The primary argument was that the third respondent did not meet the eligibility criteria outlined in Section 4 of the NCH Act, specifically the requirement of having at least 10 years of experience as a ‘leader’ (Head of a Department or Head of an Organisation).
• The appellant contended that the third respondent’s experience as Director General of CCRH did not satisfy the ‘leader’ requirement because his previous roles did not involve substantive decision-making responsibilities equivalent to the Head of a Department.
• The appellant emphasized that the Search Committee initially had doubts about the third respondent’s eligibility, which were never adequately addressed or clarified in the minutes of the meeting.

Arguments by the Respondents (Union of India & Third Respondent):

• The respondents argued that the third respondent’s various positions held since May 2008, particularly within CCRH, should be considered as equivalent to the ‘Head of a Department’.
• They contended that the organizational setup of CCRH allowed the Assistant Director (Homeopathy) to have independent control over various sections, thus fulfilling the leadership requirement.
• The respondents relied on a Departmental Order (D.O.) dated May 6, 2021, from the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of AYUSH, which confirmed that the third respondent had the requisite experience equivalent to Head of Department.
• The respondents highlighted the limited scope of judicial review in matters of selection and appointment, especially when experts in the relevant field (the Search Committee) have made the selection.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

1. Whether the selection process for the Chairperson of the National Commission for Homeopathy was flawed due to non-compliance with the statutory requirements of the NCH Act?
2. Whether the third respondent met the eligibility criteria, specifically the requirement of having at least 10 years of experience as a ‘leader’ (Head of a Department or Head of an Organisation) as defined in Section 4 of the NCH Act?
3. Whether the High Court’s Division Bench erred in overturning the Single Judge’s decision, which had quashed the appointment of the third respondent?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court: “The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues”

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered several authorities to arrive at its decision. These authorities were categorized by the legal point they addressed:

• Statutory Interpretation:
  • Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353 (Supreme Court of India): The Court relied on this case to emphasize the importance of interpreting statutory words in the context of the subject matter and scheme of the Act.
• Mandatory Nature of Qualifications:
  • Alka Ojha v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, (2011) 9 SCC 438 (Supreme Court of India): This case was cited to reinforce that qualifications prescribed in the Rules and the advertisement are mandatory and cannot be waived.
• Equivalence Determination:
  • N.P. Verma v. Union of India, 1989 Supp (1) SCC 748 (Supreme Court of India): The Court referred to this case to highlight that there should be some material basis for determining the equivalence of posts.
• Scope of Judicial Review:
  • University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao, 1963 SCC OnLine SC 15 (Supreme Court of India): This Constitution Bench decision provided a clear picture on the limited scope of interference in matters of selection by experts.
  • Mahesh Chandra Gupta v. Union of India, (2009) 8 SCC 273 (Supreme Court of India): This case delineated the applicability of judicial review in cases of eligibility and suitability.
  • Veer Pal Singh v. Ministry of Defence, (2013) 8 SCC 83 (Supreme Court of India): The Court held that there is nothing like exclusion of judicial review of the decision taken on the basis of expert opinion.
• Fraud on Public:
  • Distt. Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, (1990) 3 SCC 655 (Supreme Court of India): This case emphasized that it amounts to a fraud on the public to appoint persons with inferior qualifications.
• Interference in Selection Process:
  • Tajvir Singh Sodhi v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 344 (Supreme Court of India): The Court acknowledged that interference could be made if there are proven allegations of malfeasance or violations of statutory rules.
• Departure from Statutory Rules:
  • Sushil Kumar Pandey v. High Court of Jharkhand, (2024) 6 SCC 162 (Supreme Court of India): This case held that statutory rules must be given primacy in any selection process.
• Malice in Law:
  • Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania, (2010) 9 SCC 437 (Supreme Court of India): The Court discussed the concept of ‘malice in law’ and stated that passing an order for an unauthorized purpose constitutes malice in law.
  • R.S. Garg v. State of U.P., (2006) 6 SCC 430 (Supreme Court of India): This Court applied the principle of malice in law to service disputes.
  • Swaran Singh Chand v. Punjab SEB, (2009) 13 SCC 758 (Supreme Court of India): The Court held that non-compliance of the State’s own directions would constitute malice in law.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate [AIR 1958 SC 353]: The Court used this authority to emphasize the importance of interpreting statutory words in the context of the subject matter and scheme of the Act.
• Alka Ojha v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission [(2011) 9 SCC 438]: This case was cited to reinforce that qualifications prescribed in the Rules and the advertisement are mandatory and cannot be waived.
• N.P. Verma v. Union of India [1989 Supp (1) SCC 748]: The Court referred to this case to highlight that there should be some material basis for determining the equivalence of posts.
• University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao [1963 SCC OnLine SC 15]: This Constitution Bench decision provided a clear picture on the limited scope of interference in matters of selection by experts.
• Mahesh Chandra Gupta v. Union of India [(2009) 8 SCC 273]: This case delineated the applicability of judicial review in cases of eligibility and suitability.
• Veer Pal Singh v. Ministry of Defence [(2013) 8 SCC 83]: The Court held that there is nothing like exclusion of judicial review of the decision taken on the basis of expert opinion.
• Distt. Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi [(1990) 3 SCC 655]: This case emphasized that it amounts to a fraud on the public to appoint persons with inferior qualifications.
• Tajvir Singh Sodhi v. State of Jammu and Kashmir [2023 SCC OnLine SC 344]: The Court acknowledged that interference could be made if there are proven allegations of malfeasance or violations of statutory rules.
• Sushil Kumar Pandey v. High Court of Jharkhand [(2024) 6 SCC 162]: This case held that statutory rules must be given primacy in any selection process.
• Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania [(2010) 9 SCC 437]: The Court discussed the concept of ‘malice in law’ and stated that passing an order for an unauthorized purpose constitutes malice in law.
• R.S. Garg v. State of U.P. [(2006) 6 SCC 430]: This Court applied the principle of malice in law to service disputes.
• Swaran Singh Chand v. Punjab SEB [(2009) 13 SCC 758]: The Court held that non-compliance of the State’s own directions would constitute malice in law.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the following factors:

• Non-compliance with Statutory Requirements: The Court found that the selection process deviated from the mandatory requirements prescribed in Section 4 of the NCH Act, particularly regarding the essential qualifications for the Chairperson.
• Lack of Procedural Fairness: The Court noted the absence of procedural fairness in the selection process, as the Search Committee did not adequately address its initial doubts about the third respondent’s eligibility.
• Misrepresentation of Experience: The Court observed that the third respondent had misrepresented his work experience in his application for the position.
• Malice in Law: The Court concluded that the appointment of the third respondent suffered from malice in law, as the State exercised a power for a purpose foreign to that for which the power in law is intended.

Fact:Law Ratio: The sentiment analysis of the Supreme Court’s decision reveals a ratio of Fact:Law, indicating the relative influence of factual and legal considerations.

Logical Reasoning

Issue 1: Flawed Selection Process

Issue 2: Eligibility Criteria

Issue 3: High Court’s Decision

Key Takeaways

• Strict Adherence to Eligibility Criteria: Public appointments must strictly adhere to the eligibility criteria prescribed by the statute and advertisement.
• Procedural Fairness: Selection processes must maintain procedural fairness, and any doubts about a candidate’s eligibility must be adequately addressed.
• Judicial Review: Courts can interfere in selection processes if there are violations of statutory rules or evidence of legal malice.
• Importance of Transparency: Transparency in the decision-making process is crucial to maintain the integrity of public appointments.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the third respondent to step down from the office of Chairperson of the Commission within a week from the date of the judgment. The Court also directed that a fresh process be initiated for appointment to the office of Chairperson of the Commission expeditiously.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that appointments to public offices must strictly adhere to the eligibility criteria prescribed by the relevant statute and that any deviation from these criteria can be subject to judicial review, especially if there is evidence of procedural unfairness or legal malice. This judgment reinforces the importance of transparency and accountability in public appointments and clarifies the scope of judicial review in such matters.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Dr. Amaragouda L Patil vs. Union of India & Ors. sets aside the appointment of the Chairperson of the National Commission for Homeopathy, emphasizing the need for strict adherence to statutory requirements and procedural fairness in public appointments. The Court’s decision underscores the importance of eligibility criteria, transparency, and accountability in the selection process, reinforcing the principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness in public employment.