The Central Administrative Court upheld a ruling disqualifying National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC) chairman Dr Sarana Boonbaichaiyapruck from office, finding that his work at a state-run hospital breached eligibility rules.
In dismissing Dr Sarana’s petition, the court on Friday upheld the selection committee’s July ruling but said his actions and orders as NBTC chairman were not automatically invalidated by the dispute over his qualifications.
Dr Sarana could file a petition with the Supreme Administrative Court within 30 days.
Dr Sarana asked the court on Aug 3 to revoke the NBTC selection committee’s July 21 ruling, which found that he had a prohibited characteristic and was ineligible to serve as an NBTC commissioner.
The dispute centred on whether the committee could examine his case after his royal appointment, and whether his hourly medical work at state-run Ramathibodi Hospital violated Section 8(2) of the Frequency Allocation Act, which bars commissioners from being employees of state agencies or state enterprises.
The court ruled that the committee had statutory authority under Section 15/1 of the Act to examine prohibited characteristics. His subsequent royal appointment did not remove that authority because the circumstances concerning his professional status had arisen before the appointment.
The court found that the committee had acted within its lawful authority in issuing the July ruling. The key substantive issue was whether his work at Ramathibodi Hospital constituted independent professional practice or employment by a state agency.
The NBTC selection panel was presented with evidence that Dr Sarana retained temporary employee status as a physician at Ramathibodi Hospital’s Faculty of Medicine and received hourly payments from Jan 8 to April 12, 2022.
Dr Sarana argued that he had resigned from his university position and that his patient treatment at the hospital constituted independent medical practice.
The court, however, ruled that it could not determine the issue solely by the contract or tax classification of his income. It said the court had to assess the actual relationship with the state agency based on the nature of his work and the circumstances in which he performed it. The court noted that Dr Sarana continued using the hospital’s premises, equipment, medical facilities and operating systems while receiving remuneration and medical benefits through the state agency.
It found these circumstances fell within the purpose of the legal prohibition, which seeks to prevent conflicts of interest and protect the independence of NBTC commissioners. The court therefore classified him as working for a state agency.