Summary

Dr. Amaragouda L. Patil v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 INSC 201
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judges: Dipankar Datta, J. & Manmohan, J.
Jurisdiction: Civil Appellate

HEADNOTES

1. Service Law – Appointment to Public Office – Violation of Eligibility Criteria

• Held: An appointment that does not meet the eligibility criteria prescribed by a statute cannot be sustained. The appointment of the third respondent as Chairperson of the National Commission for Homeopathy (NCH) was quashed as he lacked the requisite experience.

2. Judicial Review – Limited Scope in Selection Process

• Held: While courts generally do not interfere in appointments made by expert committees, judicial review is permissible when the selection violates statutory provisions. The Supreme Court found procedural irregularities in the selection process and interfered to uphold the law.

3. Malice in Law – Abuse of Administrative Discretion

• Held: Malice in law applies when an authority exercises power for a purpose foreign to its intended use. The Government of India’s decision to approve the appointment despite clear deficiencies amounted to legal malice.

4. Equivalence of Experience – Must Be Based on Concrete Evidence

• Held: The Secretary to the Government of India arbitrarily equated the third respondent’s past roles with the required leadership experience. The Court ruled that equivalence must be determined using objective criteria, not personal discretion.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

• The National Commission for Homeopathy Act, 2020 (NCH Act) governs appointments to the National Commission for Homeopathy (NCH).

• Section 4(2) of the NCH Act mandates that the Chairperson must have:

  1. A postgraduate degree in Homeopathy.

  2. At least 20 years of experience in the field.

  3. At least 10 years as a "leader" in homeopathy-related institutions.

  4. The "leader" must be either Head of a Department or Head of an Organisation.

• The Government of India issued a notification on January 16, 2021, inviting applications for the Chairperson post.

• Dr. Amaragouda L. Patil (appellant) and Dr. Anil Khurana (third respondent) applied for the position.

• Dr. Anil Khurana, who was serving as Director General of the Central Council for Research in Homeopathy (CCRH), was selected and appointed as Chairperson of NCH on July 5, 2021.

• Dr. Patil challenged the appointment, claiming Dr. Khurana lacked the required 10 years of leadership experience.

• The Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court ruled that Dr. Khurana did not meet the eligibility criteria, quashed his appointment, and ordered a fresh selection process.

• The Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court reversed this ruling, upholding Dr. Khurana’s appointment.

• Dr. Patil appealed to the Supreme Court.

LEGAL ISSUES

1. Did Dr. Anil Khurana meet the statutory eligibility criteria for Chairperson of NCH?

2. Was the Government of India’s approval of Dr. Khurana’s appointment arbitrary and illegal?

3. What is the role of judicial review in appointments made by expert committees?

4. Was there legal malice in the selection process?

COURT’S ANALYSIS

1. Dr. Anil Khurana Did Not Meet the Leadership Criteria

• The Supreme Court examined Dr. Khurana’s career record and found that he was never officially designated as "Head of a Department" or "Head of an Organisation" for the required 10 years.

• The Search Committee itself had doubts about his eligibility, stating it was “not clear” whether he met the leadership requirement.

• Documents submitted as proof did not establish his experience as a department head.

• The Court ruled that Dr. Khurana’s appointment violated Section 4(2) of the NCH Act.

2. Government of India’s Approval Was Arbitrary & Legally Malicious

• The Secretary to the Government of India issued a Departmental Order (D.O.) stating that Dr. Khurana had the requisite experience.

• However, the Supreme Court found no supporting documents in the official records to justify this conclusion.

• The Court ruled that this was an arbitrary decision taken without evidence, constituting malice in law.

3. Judicial Review Is Permissible When Selection Violates Statutory Rules

• The Court reaffirmed that judicial review does not extend to re-evaluating merit but applies to verifying compliance with statutory rules.

• Since Dr. Khurana’s selection violated clear statutory provisions, the Court was justified in intervening.

• Precedents cited:

  • University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao (1963 SCC OnLine SC 15) – Courts should generally defer to expert bodies but must intervene when statutory violations occur.

  • Mahesh Chandra Gupta v. Union of India (2009) 8 SCC 273 – Judicial review is permitted in matters of eligibility but not suitability.

  • Distt. Collector v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi (1990) 3 SCC 655 – Appointments violating eligibility criteria are a fraud on the public.

4. Equivalence of Experience Must Be Based on Objective Criteria

• The Secretary, GoI, equated Dr. Khurana’s past positions with the “Head of a Department” requirement without applying clear criteria.

• The Court emphasized that equivalence must be based on well-defined factors like job responsibilities, administrative control, and decision-making power.

• Cited Precedent:

  • N.P. Verma v. Union of India (1989 Supp (1) SCC 748) – Equivalence requires a structured evaluation process.

CONCLUSION & FINAL ORDER

1. Dr. Anil Khurana’s appointment was quashed as he did not meet the statutory experience requirement.

2. The Supreme Court restored the Single Judge’s order, which had invalidated the appointment.

3. Dr. Khurana must step down as Chairperson of NCH within one week and cannot take further policy or financial decisions.

4. The Government of India must initiate a fresh selection process in compliance with the law.

5. Dr. Khurana will retain the benefits received during his tenure but will not receive any future benefits based on the now-invalidated appointment.

Final Disposition: Appointment Quashed, Fresh Selection Ordered

This case reinforces that public appointments must strictly adhere to statutory eligibility criteria. The ruling serves as a strong precedent against arbitrary decision-making and legal malice in administrative actions.