Delhi High Court: A Public Interest Litigation (‘PIL’) was filed as a writ of Quo Warranto seeking a judicial inquiry into the legitimacy of the appointment of Respondent 3, Dr. Ishwarappa Veerbhadrappa Basavaraddi as Director of the Morarji Desai National Institute of Yoga (‘MDNIY’), a distinguished autonomous institution under the Ministry of AYUSH, Union of India (‘AYUSH’). The Division Bench of Satish Chandra Sharma, C.J., and Sanjeev Narula, J.*, held that it was established through careful evaluation of the service records and educational qualifications that Respondent 3 had met the essential criteria for the appointment as Director of MDNIY, as applicable at the time of his appointment and compliance with the prescribed qualifications was a central pillar in upholding the legitimacy of his position.
Petitioner’s request for scrutiny was premised on the allegations that Respondent 3’s ascendance to this role was marred by a lack of requisite qualifications and a purportedly false and fabricated employment record. Petitioner alleged to have encountered the reported discrepancies while serving at the MDNIY, and thus had approached this Court to address what he delineates to be gross irregularities and statutory breaches.
The Court opined that “the sanctity of appointments to public offices was of paramount importance, and the issuance of a writ of Quo warranto was a tool to ensure that no individual occupied a public office without legal authority. However, the petition for such a writ must be grounded on firm evidence that dislodges the presumption of regularity in public appointments”.
The Court noted that the authenticity of the qualifications of Respondent 3 had been validated by Karnatak University, being the institution that issued the certificates in favour of Respondent 3. Thus, the Court opined that prima facie, Respondent 3 satisfied the first essential educational prerequisites of the Recruitment Rules, which called for a Post-Graduate Degree in any subject and a Diploma in Yoga from a recognized institution.
The Court noted petitioner’s submission that a Master’s Degree in Yoga Studies was indispensable for the appointment as per the Karnatak University Staff Recruitment Statute (‘Statute’), however, the Court opined that the language of the Statute used the conjunction “or”, indicating that a Master’s Degree in Yoga Studies was not the sole route to qualification and instead, a Diploma in the relevant field, coupled with a Master’s Degree, would also meet the criteria set out in the Statute. The Court also opined that although Philosophy and Psychology were specifically mentioned, the term “preferably” suggested their consideration as desirable rather than exclusive options. Thus, the Court stated that the possession of any Master’s Degree, alongside a Diploma in Yoga, was adequate for the role of a Yoga Instructor under the Statute.
The Court noted that to show that Respondent 3 had amassed over ten years of experience, he had furnished a Service Certificate dated 19-03-2005, issued by the Registrar of Karnatak University at the time of his application for the Director’s position. The Court, after matching Respondent 3’s employment advancement at Karnatak University with his academic credentials, opined that it found no irregularities in his appointment process as a Yoga Instructor. The Court also opined that under the ‘essential’ qualifications stipulated in the Recruitment Rules, there was no specific mandate for the candidate to have been regularly employed as a Yoga Instructor for a decade and therefore, the second essential condition had also been satisfactorily fulfilled by Respondent 3 as the Service Certificate was unequivocal in showing that since 1989, Respondent 3 had over a decade of experience in lecturing in Yoga at a recognized university.
The Court further opined that the ‘desirable’ qualifications appeared to have been adequately addressed as well, although not mandatory, the ‘desirable’ qualifications provide a supplementary framework to gauge the aptness of a candidate for a directorial role, offering a holistic view of their capabilities. The Court observed that Respondent 3 had not only completed a Diploma in Yoga and a Doctorate in Philosophy, but he also possessed significant lecturing experience in Yoga and such qualifications would equip an individual with a considerable depth of theoretical knowledge as well as a foundational expertise in Yoga, which were conducive to the directorial role within an institution dedicated to this discipline. Thus, the Court held that Respondent 3’s overall profile aligned with that envisioned for the Director of MDNIY, and it was a reasonable deduction that Respondent 3 was not merely qualified but indeed aptly suited for the role.
The Court held that it was established through careful evaluation of the service records and educational qualifications that Respondent 3 had met the essential criteria for the appointment as Director of MDNIY, as applicable at the time of his appointment and this compliance with the prescribed qualifications was a central pillar in upholding the legitimacy of his position. The Court opined that “mere dissatisfaction with the outcomes related to an appointment process, or the performance of an appointee, did not per se translate into legal infirmity. The standard of proof required to dislodge an incumbent from a public office via a writ of Quo warranto was exacting, and such an action must be predicated upon clear, unambiguous, and cogent evidence of illegality in their appointment”.
The Court noted that Respondent 3 had retired from his position as Director on 30-06-2023, having attained the age of superannuation and thus opined that this development, in conjunction with the reasons previously delineated, rendered the present petition and the relief sought therein moot. The Court thus dismissed the petition.
[Dr. Ajay Pal v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7174, decided on 07-11-2023]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Sanjeev Narula
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Mobin Akhtar, Advocate
For the Respondents: Ajay Digpaul, CGSC; Kamal Digpaul, Swati Kwatra, R.M. Bagai, Gurudatta Ankolekar, Advocates
