AMARAGOUDA L. PATIL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A manifestly flawed process of selection, which was rightly interdicted by the writ court, has since been reversed by the writ appellate court premised on a fundamentally incorrect understanding of the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961 [Business Rules] framed under Article 77 of the Constitution of India and an utterly mistaken notion of the scope of interference in matters relating to selection and appointment. It has, thus, not surprised us at all that Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, learned Additional Solicitor General, representing the first respondent-Union of India [UoI] and the second respondent-Search Committee, and Mr. Devashish Bharuka, learned senior counsel appearing for the third respondent, have made little effort to sustain the selection of the third respondent with reference to and/or relying on the said appellate judgment. Instead, the effort has been more towards sustaining the selection and appointment of the third respondent by highlighting the limited scope of judicial review in matters where the experts in the relevant field are the selectors and the process of selection is conducted by them. Much of this later, while we deal with their contentions.

(2.) The present lis concerns appointment to the high office of 'Chairperson' of the National Commission for Homeopathy [Commission].

(3.) Facts giving rise to these three appeals from the appellate judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka [High Court], which are undisputed, lie in a narrow compass.