In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court at Goa has quashed the appointment of retired district court judge Cholu Gauns as a member of the Goa Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA). The court directed the state government to replace Gauns with Vincent M D’Silva, another retired district judge, who was initially preferred by the selection committee.
The Case
The state government had appointed Gauns to the RERA post despite the selection committee recommending D’Silva as its top choice. Vincent M D’Silva, represented by senior advocate Cleofato Almeida, challenged the decision in court. The high court found that the government’s reasons for disregarding the committee’s preference were unsupported and unjustified.
The state had claimed that Gauns had “wide experience in social administration and legal fields,” but the court found no material evidence to back this assertion. The government argued that Gauns’ tenure as a member of a village panchayat qualified him for the role, but the court rejected this rationale as insufficient to justify the appointment.
Court’s Observations
The court reaffirmed the sanctity of the selection committee’s recommendations, stating that these cannot be set aside without valid, written reasons. The judgment emphasized that while the government does have the authority to appoint individuals outside of the order of preference, such decisions must be backed by “compelling and justifiable” reasons, which were absent in this case.
“There is no whisper as to why the detailed consideration of the committee recommending the petitioner (Vincent M D’Silva) over the respondent no 3 (Cholu Gauns) is brushed aside,” the court noted in its judgment.
The high court also denied the request by Gauns’ legal counsel, senior advocate J E Coelho Pereira, to stay the judgment for four weeks, reinforcing its stance on the matter.
Implications for RERA and Future Appointments
This ruling sets a precedent for how appointments to regulatory authorities like RERA should be handled, ensuring that selections are made transparently and in accordance with committee recommendations unless compelling reasons exist to deviate. The decision is seen as a step toward ensuring merit-based appointments in regulatory bodies, thereby enhancing their credibility.