Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

Karnataka High Court Upholds of Selection Process of Chairman of  Child Rights Commission

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling today, the High Court of Karnataka, presided over by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna, upheld the appointment of the fifth respondent as Chairperson of the Karnataka State Commission for Protection of Child Rights, dismissing a writ petition that challenged the selection process.

The Court’s decision emphasized the autonomy and integrity of the selection process, as it observed, “The discretion available to this Court is exercisable only in certain circumstances, qua challenge to an appointment made by the Selection Committee, which would be arbitrariness and such arbitrariness should be palpable or demonstrable.” This statement became a focal point in the Court’s reasoning, highlighting the restrained approach taken by the judiciary in matters of public employment selection.

The petition, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, called into question the procedures followed in the appointment of the fifth respondent, arguing that the petitioner held superior qualifications and experience in child rights advocacy. However, the Court found no merit in the allegations, stating that the Selection Committee’s decision, formed under the statutory framework of the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, and the Karnataka State Commission for Protection of Child Rights Rules, 2010, was not tainted by arbitrariness or statutory violation.

The Court also referenced the Supreme Court’s judgment in Tajvir Singh Sodhi v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, to reinforce its stance on judicial non-interference in the selection process. The judgment cited states, “The law on the scope and extent of judicial review of a selection process and results thereof, may be understood on consideration of the following case law.”

Date of decision:18 november 2023

Sri ashok d. Sanadi VS  The chief secretary government of karnataka

Latest Legal News