Appointment to Public Office Must Follow the Law, Not Executive Discretion: Supreme Court Quashes Chairperson’s Selection in Homeopathy Commission

Fraud on Public Appointments Unravels Everything – Supreme Court quashed the appointment of Dr. Anil Khurana as Chairperson of the National Commission for Homeopathy (NCH), holding that he did not meet the statutory eligibility criteria under the National Commission for Homeopathy Act, 2020. The Court emphasized that mandatory qualifications for public appointments cannot be diluted or bypassed by executive discretion.

A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan delivered the verdict in Dr. Amaragouda L Patil v. Union of India & Ors., where the petitioner challenged the selection process, arguing that the third respondent lacked the requisite experience to hold the prestigious post. The Court found that the Search Committee had initially expressed doubts about Dr. Khurana’s eligibility, yet his appointment was approved without proper verification. "The Search Committee itself was unsure whether the third respondent had the required ten years of experience as 'Head of a Department' or 'Head of an Organisation,' yet no effort was made to clear this ambiguity before finalizing the appointment. Such a flawed process cannot stand," the Court observed.

Judicial Review Essential When Statutory Violations Are Evident

While reiterating that courts must exercise restraint in interfering with expert committee decisions, the Supreme Court underscored that judicial review becomes imperative when appointments violate statutory provisions. "Appointments to public office must be transparent, lawful, and in strict adherence to statutory prescriptions. When eligibility requirements are not met, the appointment is illegal, regardless of executive justifications," the judgment stated.

The Court strongly criticized the reliance on executive discretion to validate the appointment. "The Secretary, Government of India, unilaterally certified the third respondent’s eligibility without citing any supporting documents. This amounts to malice in law—an abuse of discretion that renders the appointment void," the Court held.

No Power to Relax Essential Qualifications

The judgment made it clear that the government has no authority to relax or modify statutory eligibility criteria unless expressly permitted by the law. The NCH Act mandates that the Chairperson must have at least 10 years of experience as a ‘leader’ in healthcare or homeopathy education, specifically as ‘Head of a Department’ or ‘Head of an Organisation.’ The Court found that Dr. Khurana fell short of this requirement. "A statutory requirement cannot be diluted by executive interpretation. The eligibility criteria are sacrosanct, and any deviation amounts to a fraud on public appointments," the Bench ruled.

Fraud on Public Appointments and Its Consequences

The Supreme Court invoked the doctrine that "fraud unravels everything," holding that the appointment was void from inception. "Appointments made in violation of statutory provisions undermine the constitutional guarantee of equal opportunity in public employment under Article 16. Such appointments cannot be allowed to stand, as they erode public confidence in the fairness of the selection process," the judgment declared.

Rejecting the argument that the appointee had already served for 42 months and was due to retire in less than six months, the Court stated, "Continued service in an illegal appointment does not validate it. The moment an appointment is found to be unlawful, it must be set aside, irrespective of the tenure already served."

The Supreme Court directed that Dr. Khurana must step down from his position within a week and prohibited him from making any policy decisions or financial transactions during this period. "The fresh selection process must be initiated immediately to ensure that the appointment is made in accordance with the law," the Court ordered. However, the Court clarified that while past benefits received by Dr. Khurana would not be disturbed, no future claims arising from his tenure would be entertained.

With this ruling, the Supreme Court has once again reaffirmed that appointments to public offices cannot be dictated by executive preferences but must strictly adhere to statutory mandates. The judgment sets a strong precedent against arbitrary and unlawful selections, reinforcing the principle that no individual, however competent, can occupy a public position unless they meet the legally prescribed qualifications.

Date of decision: 12/02/2025