PANAJI
The Bombay High Court at Goa has directed the State government to quash the appointment of Retired District Judge Cholu Gauns as a member of the Goa Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) and appoint Retired District Judge Vincent D’Silva to the post.
The Division bench of Justice M S Karnik and Justice Valmiki Menezes stated the government had failed to provide any justification for bypassing the recommendations of the duly constituted Selection Committee, which had placed D’Silva as the preferred candidate for the judicial member’s position under the Goa Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
D’Silva had challenged Gauns’ appointment arguing it violated the rules governing such selections. According to the petitioner, the Selection Committee, led by a Senior Judge of the High Court, had shortlisted two candidates and forwarded the recommendations to the government. D’Silva was the most preferred candidate.
The petitioner stated that for reasons which do not stand the scrutiny of the rules, the government appointed Gauns which was not according to the order of preference in terms of the Selection Committee’s recommendations.
The Court observed that considering the composition of the Selection Committee, its recommendations assume significance.
“As we find that there is absolutely no justification or material placed on record to deviate from the recommendations of the Selection Committee, we are of the opinion that in the facts of this case, the government can be directed to appoint D’Silva consequent to the quashing of the appoint of Gauns,” the Bench ordered.
Furthermore, the Court noted that due regard will have to be given to the recommendations and more so when the order of preference is forwarded after due deliberations and upon considering all the materials on record.
“A high degree of sanctity has to be attached to the recommendations which cannot be brushed aside lightly...If the appointment is not in accordance with the order of preference, the same has to be given with reasons in writing,” it said while observing that there was no whisper as to why the detailed consideration of the Selection Committee recommending the petitioner over Gauns was brushed aside.
“Not only that but there are no compelling reasons brought on record as to why the appointment made is not according to the order of preference by the Selection Committee.”
The court also observed that having regard to the recommendations, it is obvious that the petitioner and Gauns though hold adequate knowledge and requisite experience in the field of law, the Selection Committee considered the petitioner most suited.
