Karnataka High Court
Dr K R Janardhanan Nair vs The Union Of India on 29 October, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT APPEAL No.754 OF 2024 (S-RES)
C/W
CCC No.511 OF 2024 (CIVIL)
WRIT APPEAL No.1014 OF 2024 (S-RES)
IN WRIT APPEAL No.754/2024
BETWEEN:
1. DR. K. R. JANARDHANAN NAIR,
S/O LATE M. R. RAGHAVAN NAIR,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
PRESIDENT, MEDICAL ASSESSMENT
AND RATING BOARD,
NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR HOMEOPATHY,
No. 61-65, INDUSTRIAL AREA, JANAKPURI,
NEW DELHI - 110058.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI M. ARUNA SHYAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W
SRI E. SUYOG HERELE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF AYUSH,
AYUSH BHAVAN, 'B' BLOCK,
GPO COMPLEX, INA,
NEW DELHI - 110 023.
2
2. THE SEARCH COMMITTEE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CONVENOR/SECRETARY,
FOR THE POST OF PRESIDENT,
MEDICAL ASSESSMENT AND RATING BOARD,
MINISTER OF AYUSH, AYUSH BHAVAN,
'B' BLOCK, GPO COMPLEX,
NEW DELHI - 110 023.
3. DR. AMARAGOUDA L. PATIL,
S/O LINGANAGOUDA A PATIL,
AGED 63 YEARS,
RETIRED PROFESSOR AND DIRECTOR,
DEPARTMENT OF AYUSH,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU,
RESIDING AT No.86,
AURORAA PRIDE COMPLEX,
9TH MAIN, J. C. NAGAR,
KURUBARA HALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 086.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K. ARVIND KAMATH, ASGI FOR
SRI H. SHANTHI BHUSHAN, DSGI FOR R1 & R2
SRI VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTON 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 19/03/2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE IN WP No.15590/2021 AND REVIEW PETITION No.22/2024
CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS WP No.15590/2021 AND REVIEW
PETITION No.22/2024.
BETWEEN:
1. DR. AMARAGOUDA L. PATIL,
S/O LINGANAGOUDA A. PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
RETIRED PROFESSOR AND DIRECTOR,
DEPARTMENT OF AYUSH,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU,
R/AT No.86, AURORAA PRIDE APARTMENT,
9TH MAIN, J.C.NAGAR,
KURUBARAHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560086.
...COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . VAIDYA RAJESH KOTECHA,
SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF AYUSH,
AYUSH BHAWAN, 'B' BLOCK,
GPO COMPLEX, INA,
NEW DELHI - 110 023.
...ACCUSED
(BY SRI K. ARVIND KAMATH, ASGI FOR
SRI H. SHANTHI BHUSHAN, DSGI)
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, BY THE COMPLAINANT,
PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS
AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR HAVING COMMITTED CONTEMPT OF
COURT IN NOT IMPLEMENTING THE DIRECTION ISSUED BY THIS
HON'BLE COURT DATED 19.03.2024 IN WP No.15590/2021 AS PER
ANNEXURE-A AND PUNISH THE ACCUSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
LAW.
BETWEEN:
1 . THE UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF AYUSH,
AYUSH BHAVAN, 'B' BLOCK
GPO COMPLEX, INA,
NEW DELHI-11023.
2 . THE SEARCH COMMITTEE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CONVENOR / SECRETARY
FOR THE POST OF PRESIDENT,
MEDICAL ASSESSMENT AND
RATING BOARD,
MINISTER OF AYUSH,
AYUSH BHAVAN, 'B' BLOCK,
GPO COMPLEX,
NEW DELHI-110023.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI K. ARVIND KAMATH, ASGI FOR
SRI H. SHANTHI BHUSHAN, DSGI)
AND:
1. DR. AMARAGOUDA L. PATIL,
S/O LINGANAGOUDA A PATIL,
AGED 63 YEARS,
RETIRED PROFESSOR AND DIRECTOR,
DEPARTMENT OF AYUSH,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGLAURU,
RESIDING AT No.86,
AURORAA PRIDE COMPLEX,
9TH MAIN, J. C. NAGAR,
KURUBARA HALLI,
BENGALURU-560086.
2. DR. K. R. JANARDHANAN NAIR,
S/O LATE M. R. RAGHAVAN NAIR,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
PRESIDENT, MEDICAL ASSESSMENT
AND RATING BOARD,
NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR HOMEOPATHY,
No.61-65, INDUSTRIAL AREA,
JANAKPURI, NEW DELHI-110058.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 19TH MARCH 2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No. 15590/2021 AND REVIEW PETITION No.
22/2024 CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS WP No. 15590/2021 AND
REVIEW PETITION No. 22/2024, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THESE WRIT APPEALS CONNECTED WITH CCC HAVING
BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS PRONOUNCED
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
N. V. ANJARIA
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND)
Writ Appeal No.754 of 2024 and Writ Appeal No.1014 of
2024 are against the order of the learned Single Judge in Writ
Petition No.15590 of 2021 dated 19.03.2024.
Writ Appeal No.754 of 2024 is by respondent No.3 in the writ
petition. Writ Appeal 1014 of 2024 is by respondent Nos.1 and 2 in
the writ petition.
CCC No.511 of 2024 by the writ petitioner alleging
disobedience to the order in Writ Petition No.15590 of 2021.
2. As both writ appeals and contempt petition arise out of the
same order passed by learned Single Judge, appeals and petition
were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.
3. The parties are referred to as per their ranks in the writ
petition for convenience.
4. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Aruna Shyam along with
learned advocate Mr. E. Suyog Herele for the appellant, learned
Additional Solicitor General of India Mr. K. Arvind Kamath for
learned Deputy Solicitor General of India Mr. H. Shanthi Bhushan
for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and learned advocate Mr. Vijaya
Kumar for respondent No.3 in Writ Appeal No. 754 of 2024.
Learned advocate Mr. Vijaya Kumar for the complainant and
learned Additional Solicitor General of India Mr. K. Arvind Kamath
for learned Deputy Solicitor General of India Mr. H. Shanthi
Bhushan for respondent in CCC No.511 of 2024.
Learned Additional Solicitor General of India Mr. K. Arvind
Kamath for learned Deputy Solicitor General of India Mr. H. Shanthi
Bhushan for the appellants and learned advocate Mr. Vijaya Kumar
for respondent No.1 in Writ Appeal No.1014 of 2024.
Brief facts
5. Respondent No.1 invited applications from eligible
candidates to the post of President, Medical Assessment and
Rating Board for Homoeopathy (for short, 'Board'). The Board is
autonomous and governed by the National Commission for
Homoeopathy Act, 2020 (for short, 'Act'), which prescribes the
procedure to fill up the post of President of the Board.
6. The President is selected on the recommendation of the
Search Committee as constituted in terms of Section 5 of the Act.
The petitioner and respondent No.3 preferred applications to the
post of the President. Further, Section 19 of the Act prescribes the
Board's composition and the requisite qualifications. The Search
Committee recommended the appointment of respondent No.3.
Respondent No.1, by Notification dated 05.07.2021, appointed
respondent No.3 as President of the Board.
7. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.15590 of 2021 challenged
the appointment of respondent No.3, mainly disputing the eligibility
of respondent No.3 in satisfying the qualifying conditions. Learned
Single Judge by order dated 10.01.2024 upheld the appointment of
respondent No.3. The petitioner preferred Review Petition No.22
of 2024, learned Single Judge by order dated 19.03.2024 recalled
the order dated 10.01.2024. After the restoration of the writ
petition, by order dated 19.03.2024, the learned Single Judge
quashed the appointment of respondent No.3 and directed
respondent No.1 to undertake the appointment process to the post
of President of the Board afresh.
Submissions
8. Mr. Aruna Shyam, learned Senior Advocate, along with
Mr. E. Suyog Herele learned advocate for the appellant, submits as
under,
8.1 Respondent No.3 possesses the experience and comply the
requisite qualifications as prescribed under the Act.
8.2 Respondent No.3 discharged his services as Officer in
charge of the Central Research Institute of Homoeopathy (CRIH),
Kottayam and was an ex-officio governing council member from
30.04.2012 to 30.04.2018. As Officer in charge, this respondent
was heading CRIH, Kottayam. Further possess experience as
Principal, National Homoeopathy Research Institute in Mental
Health (NHRIMH), Kottayam, from 01.05.2018 to 01.05.2019. The
above experience fulfils the requisite qualification of seven years as
a leader.
8.3 The petitioner was in knowledge of the qualification of
respondent No.3, having participated in the selection process and
being unsuccessful, is prevented from challenging the selection.
8.4 The appointment of the President is on the recommendation
of the Search Committee consisting of experts. The Expert
Committee, having satisfied the requisite qualification of this
respondent to the post of President, recommended for
appointment. The expert opinion cannot be substituted.
9. Mr. K Arvind Kamath, learned Additional Solicitor General of
India, along with Mr. H. Shanthi Bhushan, learned Deputy Solicitor
General of India, appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits as
under,
9.1 Respondent No.3 fulfils the eligibility criteria with requisite
qualifications and experience as prescribed in the Act.
9.2 The appointment of the President is as per the
recommendation of the Search Committee consisting of the
experts.
9.3 The experts, having evaluated the requisite qualification and
experience of respondent No.3, recommended for appointment as
President of the Board. The Search Committee, having regard to
the experience of respondent No.3 in various positions such as
Officer-in-Charge of CRIH, Kottayam and Principal, NHRIMH,
Kottayam, for the periods 30.04.2012 to 30.04.2018 and
01.05.2018 to 01.05.2019 opined the suitability of respondent No.3
as President of the Board. While forming the opinion, the Search
Committee, satisfied with the experience of seven years as a
leader, recommended respondent No.3 to be appointed as
President.
9.4 The Search Committee as constituted under the Act consists
of the Cabinet Secretary as the Chairperson, two experts with
outstanding qualifications and experience of not less than 25 years
in the field of Homoeopathy, another expert with outstanding
qualifications and experience of not less than 25 years in the field
of Health Research, Management, Law, Economics, Science and
Technology, one more expert as nominated by the Central
Government and the Secretary to the Government of India, in-
charge of AYUSH. The Expert Committee has examined the
prescribed qualitative and quantitative experience in the respective
fields. The Experts have opined the respondent No.3 has
experience of seven years as a leader. Respondent No.1 has
appointed Respondent No.3 as President on the recommendation
of the Committee.
9.5 The opinion of the Expert Committee cannot be substituted
with another, at the instance of the petitioner, merely for the reason
that this petitioner is unsuccessful. The petitioner has not alleged
any mala fides in the selection process.
9.6 Relies on the judgment of the Bench in Writ Appeal No.242
of 2024 and connected matters dated 31.07.2024 in the case of
Dr. Anil Khurana vs. Dr. Amaragouda L. Patil to contend that
expert opinion cannot be substituted with that of the Court.
10. Mr. Vijaya Kumar, learned advocate appearing for the
petitioner, submits as under,
10.1 The experience of respondent No.3 as Officer in-charge of
CRIH, Kottayam, cannot be considered as experience as a leader.
The experience as the Principal for one year alone is required to be
considered. As such, respondent No.3 will not posses experience
of sever years as a leader.
10.2 The service as Head of the Department or as Head of the
Organization can be considered as a leader. The period of service
as Officer in charge neither fits as Head of the Department nor as
the Head of the Organization.
10.3 The petitioner was qualified and eligible to be appointed to
the post of the President. The work experience of respondent No.3
would not satisfy the requisites of the Act.
10.4 The petitioner is more experienced in the field than
respondent No.3 and more suitable to the post.
10.5 The Search Committee, while considering the suitability of
the candidates, incorrectly assessed the experience of respondent
No.3 as that of the petitioner. If the Committee has evaluated the
petitioner's work experience, which satisfies the Act's requisites,
the petitioner ought to have been recommended to the post of the
President.
10.6 With regard to the judgment relied on by the learned
Additional Solicitor General of India, the learned advocate submits
that the same is subject to challenge in Special Leave to Appeal
(C) Nos.20360-20362 of 2024. The facts are different. The
requisite qualifications and experience in the present and referred
cases are entirely different.
Statutory Provisions
11. The appointment of the President, Medical Assessment and
Rating Board for Homoeopathy is governed by the National
Commission for Homoeopathy Act, 2020. Relevant provisions are
as under,
Section 5 (1) reads as,
5(1) The Central Government shall appoint the
Chairperson referred to in section 4 and the President of
the Autonomous Boards referred to in section 20 on the
recommendation of a Search Committee consisting of -
(a) the Cabinet Secretary-Chairperson;
(b) two experts, possessing outstanding qualifications
and experience of not less than twenty-five years in
the field of Homoeopathy, to be nominated by the
Central Government-Members;
(c) one expert, from amongst the members as referred
to in clause (c) of sub-section (4) of section 4, to be
nominated by the Central Government in such
manner as may be prescribed-Member;
(d) one person, possessing outstanding qualifications
and experience of not less than twenty-five years in
the field of health research, management, law,
economics or science and technology, to be
nominated by the Central Government-Member;
(e) the Secretary to the Government of India incharge of
the AYUSH, to be the Convenor-Member:
Provided that for selection of part-time members of the
Commission referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (4) of
section 4, the Secretary referred to in section 8 and other
Members of the Autonomous Boards referred to in section
20, the Search Committee shall consist of members
specified in clauses (b) to (d) and Joint Secretary to the
Government of India in the Ministry of AYUSH as
Convenor-Member and chaired by Secretary to the
Government of India in-charge of the Ministry of AYUSH.
Section 19 reads as,
19(1) The composition of the Autonomous Boards shall be
as under, namely:--
(a) the Homoeopathy Education Board shall consist of a
President and four Members from the discipline of
Homoeopathy;
(b) the Medical Assessment and Rating Board for
Homoeopathy shall consist of a President from the
discipline of Homoeopathy and two Members, out of
whom one Member shall be from the discipline of
Homoeopathy and the other Member shall be an
accreditation expert;
(c) the Board of Ethics and Registration for
Homoeopathy shall consist of a President from the
discipline of Homoeopathy and two Members, out of
whom one Member shall be from the discipline of
Homoeopathy and the other Member shall be a
person who has demonstrated public record of work
on medical ethics or chosen from any of the
disciplines of quality assurance, public health, law or
patient advocacy.
(2) The President and Members of the Autonomous
Boards to be chosen under sub-section (1) shall be
persons of outstanding ability, proven administrative
capacity and integrity, possessing post-graduate degree in
respective disciplines from a recognised University and
having experience of not less than fifteen years in
respective fields, out of which at least seven years shall be
as a leader:
Provided that seven years as leader in the case of the
President and Member from Homoeopathy shall be in the
area of health, growth and development of education in
Homoeopathy.
Section 20 reads as,
20. The Central Government shall appoint the President
and Members of the Autonomous Boards on the basis of
the recommendations made in accordance with the
procedure specified in section 5 by the Search Committee
constituted thereunder.
Explanation to Section 4 reads as,
Explanation.--For the purpose of this section and section
19, the term "leader" means the Head of a Department or
the Head of an organisation.
Analysis
12. The Medical Assessment and Rating Board for
Homoeopathy is an autonomous Board. The power to appoint a
President and Members of the Board vests with the Central
Government. The process of appointment is prescribed under
Section 5. The selection to the post of President would be made
on the recommendation of the Search Committee. The Search
Committee as constituted by the Central Government shall consist
of Cabinet Secretary as Chairperson, two experts in the field of
Homoeopathy, one expert member, another expert member having
experience in the field of Health Research, Management, law,
Economics or Science and Technology along with Secretary to the
Government of India, in-charge of AYUSH.
13. It is evident from the pleadings that the appointment of
respondent No.3 as President is on the recommendation of the
Search Committee. The Search Committee is expected to
undertake the exercise of assessing the qualification and
experience. The prescribed experience is fifteen years in the
respective fields, of which, seven years shall be as a leader. The
'leader' means Head of a Department or Head of an Organization.
The fifteen years of experience of respondent No.3 in the field is
not questioned. The dispute is with regard to the experience of
seven years as a leader.
14. To address the grievance in these appeals, the Court has to
examine the fulfillment of seven years of experience as a leader by
respondent No.3.
15. Respondent No.3 claims experience as Officer-in-charge,
CRIH, Kottayam, as a leader. CRIH is part of the Central Council
for Research in Homoeopathy (CCRH), now called the National
Homoeopathy Research Institute in Mental Health. CRIH,
Kottayam is part of CCRH. The pleadings would indicate
respondent No.3 was the Officer in charge of CRIH, Kottayam. In
the absence of any contra material, prima facie the CRIH,
Kottayam is independent though part of CCRH. Respondent No.3,
as an Officer in charge, would be heading CRIH. The experience
as Officer in charge of CRIH would qualify as Head of the
Department as well as Head of an Organization.
16. The scope of interference of the Court in the matters decided
by the Expert Committee is dealt by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In
Tajvir Singh Sodhi others vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir
and others (2023 SCC OnLine SC 344), it is held that Courts
while exercising the power of judicial review cannot step into the
shoes of the Selection Committee or assume an appealable role to
examine whether the marks awarded by the Selection Committee
in the viva voce are excessive and not corresponding to their
performance in such tests. The assessment and evaluation of the
performance of the candidates appearing before the Selection
Committee should be best left to the members of the Committee.
17. Further, in Basavaiah (Dr.) vs. Dr. H.L. Ramesh and
others (2010) 8 SCC 372, it is held that the Courts have a very
limited role in academic matters when no mala fides are alleged
against the Selection Committee. It is further held that it would be
prudent to leave the decision to the academicians and experts and
not to endeavour to sit in an appeal over the decision of the
experts.
18. This Bench in Dr. Anil Khurana (supra) held that in the
absence of any material presented to the Court to prove that the
selection process by the Selection Committee suffers from mala
fides, the court is not free to substitute its opinion.
19. The grievance of the petitioner is to be tested with the
principles of law referred to supra. The application, qualification
and experience of the petitioner and respondent No.3 have been
examined by the Search Committee. The Search Committee being
a body of experts having satisfied with respondent No.3 fulfilling the
requisite experience including seven years as a leader
recommended for appointment. Further, the Committee also
considered the outstanding ability, proven administrative capacity
and integrity of the candidates, which are also requisite
qualifications.
20. The recommendation of the Committee is placed before the
Appointment Committee of the cabinet, respondent No.1
considering the recommendation has notified appointment of
respondent No.3.
21. The record before the Court would not indicate any
irregularities or mala fides in the process of selection by the
Committee. Having regard to the technical experience and
expertise of the eligible candidates and the composition of the
experts included in the Search Committee, the Court concludes
that the expert opinion of the Search Committee in recommending
respondent No.3 to the post of the President of the Board needs no
interference of the Court. No ground is made out on any
irregularities and mala fides in the selection process by the
Committee.
22. Learned Single Judge without considering the entire
selection procedure to the post of President of the Board, which
involves the opinion of the experts as a Search Committee,
committed an error in interfering with the appointment. The finding
that the experience as Officer-in-charge, CRIH, Kottayam cannot
be counted while considering seven years experience as a leader
is without any basis. The finding on the eligibility of respondent
No.3 by learned Single Judge would result in a substitute for the
opinion of the Expert Committee. The exercise of substituting the
opinion by the Court is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the judgments referred to supra.
23. Learned advocate for the petitioner relied on the order dated
09.09.2024 in Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.20360-20362 of
2024 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein notice is issued. The
order is of no assistance to the petitioner.
24. In the backdrop of the above analysis, the order of the
learned Single Judge interfering with the appointment of
respondent No.3 is unsustainable.
25. Accordingly, the following,
(i) Writ Appeal No.754 of 2024, Writ Appeal No.1014 of
2024 are allowed.
(ii) The order of learned Single Judge in Writ Petition
No.15590 of 2021 and Review Petition No.22 of 2024,
both dated 19.03.2024 are set aside.
(iii) Writ Petition No.15590 of 2021 is hereby dismissed.
The order of learned Single Judge dated 19.03.2024 in Writ
Petition No.15590 of 2021 is brought under contempt in CCC
No.511 of 2024. In view of the order in Writ Appeal No.754 of
2024, contempt would not lie.
In view of the disposal of the main appeals, pending
interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of as not surviving.
Sd/-
(N. V. ANJARIA)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
MV
