HARINDRAN NAIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Excellence in public office is the sine qua non for a dynamic, buoyant and vibrant democracy. This is crucial for the trust of the citizens in the organs of the polity and this trust in turn is crucial for the legitimacy and sustainability of every democratic system. It depends on the positive perception by citizens on what is fair and right. The emphasis for appointment to public office is certainly pivotal on the inviolable requisites of integrity, which essentially is the final arbiter of credibility of any system. Excellence, after all, in its final analysis is the result of constant and habitual integrity.

(2.) When questions relating to appointment to public offices, specially statutory ones, are placed before the consideration of courts, there always is a duty cast upon it to assess whether the process of selection has been true to the system created for such purpose and whether it has been done implicitly following the manner and the mechanism for it, that have been statutorily put in place. There can be no doubt that every such endeavor is to find out the best among the available options and that assessments are made in such manner so as to eliminate the less desirous by maintaining those who are found better qualified in terms of credibility, integrity and technical and professional capacity to hold such post.

(3.) The genesis of the controversy in this case relates to the appointment of a Part-time Official Receiver, under the provisions of the Insolvency Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act'), for the Thiruvananthapuram District. The Act provides for the appointment of the Official Receivers for each District and under Section 59 of it, the Government has been authorised to appoint such persons as they think fit to be Official Receivers under the Act within such local limits as they may prescribe. The relevant provisions of Section 59 are as under: