Executive Cannot Impose Additional Eligibility Criteria For Statutory Appointments Beyond What Is Prescribed In Parent Act: Karnataka High Court

"When the Act prescribes the eligibility criteria or qualifications, the executive cannot, by notification or executive instructions, impose additional qualifications unless the Act delegates such authority." High Court of Karnataka, in a significant ruling, held that the executive cannot use notifications or administrative guidelines to introduce eligibility criteria for statutory appointments that are not contemplated by the parent legislation.

A bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed that when a statute dictates the essential qualifications, any notification imposing additional requirements without delegated authority travels beyond the provisions of the law and is legally unsustainable.

The Court was hearing a batch of three writ petitions concerning the Karnataka State Pharmacy Council. The first petition challenged an election notification, alleging illegalities in the preparation of the final voter list after the statutory cut-off date. The second petition challenged a government notification prescribing a minimum 15-year business experience requirement for nominated members to the Council. The third petition challenged the State Government's decision to dissolve the Council and appoint an Administrator over allegations of severe financial mismanagement and maladministration.

The primary question before the court was whether the executive could impose additional eligibility conditions for nominated members beyond those explicitly stipulated in Section 19(b) of the Pharmacy Act, 1948. The court was also called upon to determine whether alleged irregularities in the preparation of an electoral roll could justify stalling an ongoing statutory election process, and whether the appointment of an Administrator to dissolve the Council was valid in law.

Executive Cannot Overstep Statutory Prescriptions

The Court heavily scrutinized the notification dated February 28, 2025, which mandated that applicants for nomination to the Pharmacy Council must have carried out business as pharmacists for at least 15 years in Karnataka. The bench noted that Section 19(b) of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, which governs the composition of the State Councils, nowhere stipulates such a requirement for nominated members.

Statute Prevails Over Executive Notifications

Relying on a catena of Supreme Court judgments, the Court emphasized that executive actions cannot travel beyond the confines of the parent Act. The bench observed that where the statute already prescribes the requisite qualifications, additional eligibility conditions cannot be introduced through executive fiat. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned notification prescribing the 15-year experience condition.

"Where the statute prescribes the essential qualifications, there can be no deviation from the statutory requirements, nor can an advertisement or notification inviting applications for a selection process prescribe qualifications at variance with those contained in the statute, unless the power to relax or modify such qualifications is expressly conferred."

Electoral Roll Preparation Is Not The Election Itself

Addressing the challenge to the election notification based on alleged flaws in the voter list, the Court referred to the Supreme Court's rulings in P.T. Rajan v. T.P.M. Sahir and Mohinder Singh Gill. The bench reiterated that the preparation and revision of electoral rolls is a continuous process distinct from the actual election. Any illegality in preparing the electoral roll cannot automatically halt the election process or form the basis of an election petition, as the election is a separate statutory mechanism.

Mandamus Issued To Address Voter List Grievances

While refusing to quash the election notification, the Court acknowledged the petitioners' grievances regarding the inclusion of unauthorized voters after the statutory cut-off date. To ensure fairness and adherence to the Karnataka State Pharmacy Council Rules, 1968, the Court directed the Returning Officer to formally consider the representations made by the aggrieved pharmacists, examine the contentions raised regarding the notified voters list, and re-notify the list if necessary.

Public Interest Overrides Individual Statutory Tenures

On the issue of the State Government dissolving the Pharmacy Council and appointing an Administrator, the Court found no merit in the petitioners' challenge. The bench perused the investigation report which disclosed illegal investments, abuse of power, and a blatant failure to conduct mandatory financial audits or submit meeting minutes as required under Section 28 of the Pharmacy Act.

Transparency And Good Governance Paramount

The Court categorically held that an individual's interest in continuing in office must yield to the larger public interest when serious maladministration is evident. The bench observed that decisions taken in the public interest to ensure transparency, accountability, and good governance always prevail over the individual interests of members of elected or nominated statutory bodies. The appointment of the Administrator was thus upheld as a necessary supervisory measure.

The High Court ultimately allowed the writ petition challenging the nomination eligibility criteria, quashing the executive notification for traveling beyond the Pharmacy Act. It sustained the election notification while directing the Returning Officer to dispose of the petitioners' representations regarding the voter list. Finally, the challenge to the appointment of the Administrator was dismissed, reaffirming the State's power to intervene against administrative malpractice.

Date of Decision: 13 July 2026