Dr. Amaragouda L Patil vs Union Of India 2025 INSC 201 -National Commission for Homeopathy Act - Judicial Review Of Administrative Action - Chairperson Appointment Quashed

National Commission for Homeopathy Act, 2020 -Section 4 - The appointment of the Chairperson, who is the head of the Commission carries significant importance and affects various stakeholders in the field of homeopathy.The candidate must have minimum twenty years of experience in the field of homeopathy, out of which at least ten must be as a ‘leader’. These eligibility requirements cannot be waived off by the administration, since they are mandatory requirements- Meaning of ‘Head’ -‘Head’ must refer to a position held by an incumbent who performs the role of a leader and is tasked with making substantive decisions for the department/organisation. Any claim for being ‘Head of a Department’ or ‘Head of an Organisation’ is strengthened if the incumbent exercises administrative or supervisory responsibilities. However, this is not the only factor to be considered. Any such determination must be on a case- to-case basis. (Para 27-29) [Supreme Court quashes appointment of Dr. Anil Khurana as National Commission for Homeopathy Chairperson ]

Public Employment - Selection -In the matter of essential qualifications prescribed by the statute, there should neither be any deviation from the statutory requirements nor the advertisement inviting applications while conducting any selection process, unless power to relax the qualifications is shown to exist. (Para 51) Whenever appointment to a public office is sought to be made, irrespective of the nature of the office, the rules prescribing mandatory eligibility criteria must be applied in a strict manner; after all, every public appointment under Article 16 of the Constitution must be fair, non-arbitrary and reasonable. (Para 57) - It amounts to a fraud on the public to make appointments in departure of either the statutory requirements or a public advertisement. Fraud unravels everything. (Para 59)

Constitution of India - Article 226 -Judicial review of administrative action - Interference should be limited, particularly when a merit review is sought -But interference could still be made if there are proven allegations of malfeasance or violations of statutory rules, laying bare inherent arbitrariness in the process- If any of the grounds on which judicial review of administrative action is shown to exist, interference on such ground would be well-nigh permissible. It is not an arena in which intervention is completely barred. (Para 49)

Service Law - there should be some material on the basis whereof equivalence is determined. Generally speaking, equivalence of two posts may be attempted to be determined by factors such as (1) qualifications and requirements; (2) job responsibilities and duties; (3) work environment and conditions including workload and pressure; (4) accountability and impact; and (5) evaluation of the above and comparison. (Para 38-39) - Referred to N.P. Verma v. Union of India. 1989 Supp (1) SCC 748.

Interpretation of Statutes - When there is doubt as to the meaning of a word in the provisions of a statute, the rules of statutory interpretation call upon us to interpret the words in a statute by giving a purposive interpretation having regard to the subject and object of the enactment. (Para 25)