Court finds appointment violative of constitutional principles due to lack of mandatory educational qualifications
In a significant judgment, the Uttarakhand High Court has invalidated the appointment of the Managing Director of a state corporation, citing non-compliance with mandatory educational qualifications as prescribed under the "Selection and Appointment of Managing Directors & Directors in the Three Corporations Rules, 2021." The decision came in response to three writ petitions challenging the appointment on grounds of ineligibility and arbitrariness, highlighting the vital importance of adhering to statutory norms in public appointments.
The Division Bench, comprising Justices Ashish Naithani and Subhash Upadhyay, emphasized that the statutory requirement of an Engineering Degree as per Rule 9A of the Rules, 2021, must be strictly followed unless a lawful and reasoned invocation of the proviso to Rule 9A(4) is made. The Court determined that the State Government failed to demonstrate that any decision regarding the equivalence of qualifications was made in a structured and recorded manner at the time of appointment.
The petitions, including a Public Interest Litigation, argued that the appointment of the respondent was not only arbitrary but also violated the principles of equality and non-arbitrariness enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Indian Constitution. The Court noted that while the State Government claimed the respondent’s qualifications were deemed equivalent, no objective criteria or reasoned decision was found on record to substantiate this claim.
The judgment delineates the critical distinction between eligibility and suitability, underscoring that eligibility constitutes an objective statutory condition precedent, while suitability involves subjective assessment of merit. The Court restricted its examination to the statutory compliance aspect, refraining from delving into the comparative merit of candidates.
The ruling further clarifies that the proviso to Rule 9A(4) allows for consideration of equivalent qualifications but does not permit an outright exemption. The Court asserted that such discretion must be based on objective material and recorded during the selection process, and post facto explanations cannot rectify foundational statutory defects.
In its order, the Court set aside the appointment and directed the State Government to reconsider the matter in strict accordance with the Rules, 2021. The determination of equivalence, if pursued, must be made on objective material forming part of the decision-making record within eight weeks.
This decision is pivotal in reinforcing the discipline of statutory governance and ensuring transparency and fairness in public appointments. It also serves as a reminder of the judiciary's role in upholding the rule of law and constitutional mandates in administrative actions.
Bottom Line:
Appointment to public office must strictly comply with statutory qualifications prescribed under the governing rules, and discretion to invoke equivalence must be reasoned, demonstrable, and recorded during the selection process.
Statutory provision(s): Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, Selection and Appointment of Managing Directors & Directors in the Three Corporations Rules, 2021, Rule 9A, Rule 9A(4).
Praveen Tandon v. State of Uttarakhand, (Uttarakhand)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2855200
