Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     When Two Accused Face Identical Charges, One Cannot Be Convicted While the Other is Acquitted: Supreme Court Emphasizes Principle of Parity in Acquittal    |     Supreme Court Limits Interim Protection for Financial Institutions, Modifies Order on FIRs Filed by Borrowers    |     Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail in Methamphetamine Case After Delay in Chemical Analysis Report    |     No Sign of Recent Intercourse; No Injury Was Found On Her Body Or Private Parts: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case    |     Failure to Disclose Relationship with Key Stakeholder Led to Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Gujarat High Court    |     Strict Compliance with UAPA's 7-Day Timeline for Sanctions is Essential:  Supreme Court    |     PAT Teachers Entitled to Regularization from 2014, Quashes Prospective Regularization as Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Anonymity Protections for Victims in Sensitive Cases: Right to Privacy Prevails Over Right to Information    |     Certified Copy of Will Admissible Under Registration Act, 1908: Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea for Production of Original Will    |     Injuries on Non-Vital Parts Do Not Warrant Conviction for Attempt to Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC    |     Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute    |     Mere Delay in Initiation Does Not Justify Reduction of Damages: Jharkhand High Court on Provident Fund Defaults    |     Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     An Award that Shocks the Conscience of the Court Cannot Stand, Especially When Public Money is Involved: Calcutta HC Reduces Quantum by Half    |     Trademark Transaction Within Territoriality Principle Subject to Indian Tax Laws: Bombay High Court Dismisses Hindustan Unilever's Petition on Non-Deduction of TDS    |     Concealment of Material Facts Bars Relief under Article 226: SC Reprimands Petitioners for Lack of Bonafides    |     Without Determination of the Will's Genuineness, Partition is Impossible: Supreme Court on Liberal Approach to Pleading Amendments    |     Candidates Cannot Challenge a Selection Process After Participating Without Protest : Delhi High Court Upholds ISRO's Administrative Officer Recruitment    |     Invalid Bank Guarantee Invocation Found Fatal to Recovery Claim: Delhi High Court Dismisses GAIL’s Appeal    |     Adverse Remarks in APAR Recorded Without Objectivity and Likely Motivated by Bias: Delhi High Court Quashes Biased APAR Downgrade of CRPF Officer    |    

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

Similar News