The Karnataka High Court has directed the State government to frame, within three months, appropriate guidelines for the selection and appointment of the Chairperson and Members of the Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Courts. The order came while hearing a petition filed by a former district judge, asserting that a public notice inviting applications for judicial member of the Special Court lacked any criteria or clear procedure to select among multiple applicants who met the minimum eligibility requirements. The petitioner contended that although the relevant statute prescribes minimum qualifications for the Chairperson, judicial members and revenue-members of the Special Court, there was no process or criteria laid down to distinguish between similarly qualified candidates — making the appointment process arbitrary.
The Court agreed. It observed that absence of any selection procedure or objective criteria rendered the recruitment process unfair and arbitrary, and thus violative of the right to equality of opportunity under constitutional guarantees. The Court noted that the public notice in question failed to specify any mode of evaluation or selection, nor did it outline how the appointing authority would choose among eligible candidates if more than one applied. The State government’s submission — that the statutory minimum qualifications alone were sufficient and separate selection rules were unnecessary — was rejected. The Court held that minimum eligibility does not obviate the need for a transparent and fair selection mechanism. An advertisement, it held, must itself specify the timeline, the stages of selection, and the criteria to be applied; failing which, the appointment exercise would be arbitrary and unconstitutional.
The Court pointed out that under the Land Grabbing Prohibition Act of 2011, the Special Court is to consist of a Chairperson (a sitting or retired High Court Judge), two judicial members (sitting or retired District Judges), and two revenue members (persons who hold or have held the post of Deputy Commissioner or equivalent). The statute provides only the minimum eligibility criteria — it does not address how to select among multiple qualified applicants. In this context, the Court observed that the impugned advertisement dated 16 July 2025, by not providing any selection or recruitment rules, violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The discretion to appoint, without rules, in effect meant unaccountable discretion, which is impermissible under the rule of law.
Consequently, the Court directed the State to formulate detailed rules for the recruitment process within three months. These rules must prescribe how the advertisement is to be published, how applications are to be evaluated when there are multiple eligible candidates, and what objective criteria will guide selection. Until such rules are in place, the Court indicated that the appointment process under the impugned advertisement stands stayed.
The order underscores the principle that statutory provisions prescribing minimum qualifications are not enough to ensure fairness — when multiple candidates qualify, a transparent and objective mechanism becomes essential. By mandating guidelines for selection to the Special Courts under the Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, the Court reaffirmed the constitutional guarantee of equality of opportunity in public employment and insisted that appointments be made in accordance with the rule of law.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.