Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 14 – Public employment must be fair, non-arbitrary, and reasonable – Article 16 – Appointment to public office must adhere to statutory eligibility criteria – Judicial review warranted where violation of statutory rules is established (Para 27, 41, 57).

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Article 226 – Power of High Courts to issue writs – Limited scope of judicial review in selection and appointment matters – Courts must interfere if statutory violation or procedural unfairness is found (Para 20, 41, 44).

National Commission for Homeopathy Act, 2020 – Section 4 – Eligibility criteria for appointment as Chairperson – Requirement of ten years’ experience as "Head of a Department" or "Head of an Organisation" – Interpretation of the term "leader" – Appointment found to be in contravention of statutory provisions (Para 3, 24, 28, 35).

Acts & Sections Discussed:

• Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 14, Article 16 – Public employment must be fair, non-arbitrary, and reasonable.
• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Article 226 – Judicial review in matters of selection and appointment.
• National Commission for Homeopathy Act, 2020 – Section 4 – Eligibility criteria for appointment as Chairperson.

Subjects:

Selection Process – Appointment – Eligibility Criteria – Leader – Head of a Department – Head of an Organisation – Judicial Review – Malice in Law – Statutory Violation – Public Employment – Fraud on Public.

Issues:

a. Whether the third respondent met the statutory eligibility criteria under Section 4 of the National Commission for Homeopathy Act, 2020 (Para 3, 24, 28).
b. Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the selection process and quashing the appointment (Para 4, 6, 41).
c. Whether the determination of eligibility by the Search Committee was immune from judicial scrutiny (Para 20, 21, 41).

Submissions:

a. Appellant – The third respondent lacked the requisite experience of ten years as "Head of a Department" or "Head of an Organisation" – Search Committee failed to provide any substantive proof – Selection process suffered from gross illegality (Para 3, 19, 35).
b. Union of India – The decision of the Search Committee was final – Limited scope of judicial review unless mala fides were established – Once eligibility was determined by the committee, courts could not interfere (Para 21, 44, 48).
c. Third Respondent – Held various senior positions since 2008 – Claimed experience was equivalent to that of "Head of a Department" – Submitted work allocation orders as proof (Para 30, 37).

Decision:

The Supreme Court quashed the appointment, holding that:
a. The third respondent did not meet the eligibility criteria under Section 4 of the National Commission for Homeopathy Act, 2020 – Lacked ten years’ experience as "Head of a Department" (Para 35, 36).
b. The Search Committee failed to maintain procedural fairness – No material evidence was placed on record to justify the eligibility determination (Para 19, 22, 41).
c. Determination of equivalence by the Secretary, Government of India, was unsupported by relevant documents – Conclusion was legally unsustainable (Para 37, 40).
d. Public appointments under Article 16 of the Constitution of India, 1950, must strictly adhere to statutory eligibility criteria – Any deviation amounts to a fraud on public employment (Para 41, 57).

Ratio Decidendi:

a. Judicial review in selection matters is limited – However, courts must interfere if statutory violation or procedural unfairness is established (Para 20, 41, 50).
b. Eligibility for a statutory post must be determined strictly per statutory provisions – No relaxation is permissible unless explicitly provided in the Act (Para 28, 51).
c. Legal malice occurs when a statutory power is exercised for a purpose foreign to that for which it is intended – Appointment of the third respondent suffered from malice in law (Para 52, 56).
d. Fraud vitiates everything – An appointment made in violation of statutory qualifications must be quashed, regardless of the tenure already served (Para 59, 60).

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court quashed the appointment of the third respondent and directed the Union of India to initiate a fresh selection process in accordance with law (Para 60). The third respondent was given one week to step down but was barred from taking policy or financial decisions (Para 60). Benefits already received were not disturbed, but no future benefits could accrue based on the quashed appointment (Para 61). The appellant’s claim for appointment was also dismissed (Para 62).