Search-cum-selection committee

The Orissa High Court while interpreting the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (Appointment and Conditions of Service of President and Members) Rules, 2023 held that a reconstituted Search and Selection Committee is well within its rights to restart the selection process de novo, especially when a member of the original committee demits office before the process concludes. The bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman observed that no candidate acquires an indefeasible right to appointment merely by being shortlisted or included in a select list. The final discretion lies with the Committee and the Appointing Authority. Urgency in Hearing Cited Due to Committee Member’s Retirement The Court took up the matter on an urgent basis, acknowledging that one of the members of the Committee is set to demit office by June 30, 2025. The petition challenged the legality of the reconstituted committee’s actions, particularly its decision to hold a second round of personal interactions for only a select group of candidates, including the petitioner. Background The petitioner had applied for the post of Judicial Member in the GST Appellate Tribunal. The initial Search and Selection Committee, composed of five members including a Supreme Court Judge as Chairman, conducted the first round of interviews. However, due to the Chairman's withdrawal, a new Supreme Court Judge was appointed. The reconstituted committee decided to interview candidates afresh. Subsequently, based on an adverse Intelligence Bureau (IB) report, 51 candidates—including the petitioner—were excluded from the second round of interviews. The petitioner challenged this, arguing that a second round of interviews for only a subset of already shortlisted candidates violates Rule 3(4), which mandates uniformity and fairness in evaluation. Rule 3 of the GSTAT (Appointment and Conditions of Service of President and Members) Rules, 2023 Interpretation: No Bar on Fresh Process by Reconstituted Committee Rule 3(1) of the GSTAT (Appointment and Conditions of Service of President and Members) Rules, 2023 is a repository of the information to be furnished by the intending candidates so as to bring an uniformity in scrutinising the applications and a prescribed form is also appended. Rule 3(2) of the GSTAT (Appointment and Conditions of Service of President and Members) Rules, 2023 provides for a personal interaction after the scrutiny of the applications by the committee of the short-listed candidates. Rule 3(4) of the GSTAT (Appointment and Conditions of Service of President and Members) Rules, 2023 though apply at a particular stage yet embibe within itself several aspects to be borne in mind before the committee recommended the name of the candidate to be appointed as a member. There is no quarrel to the proposition of law that offering the candidature in a public employment does not create indefeasible right into the appointment. Even a person whose name is included in the select list also cannot claim a vested right on appointment. It is within the prerogative of the committee or the appointing authorities to appoint a person to the post subject to the fulfilment of the various criteria. The provisions contained in Rule 3 does not in express terms postulate the role of the reconstituted committee or the procedures to be adopted by it in the event one or more members of the earlier committee signifies their intention to demit office. The expression within course ‘as it may deem fit’ has to be construed in a more pragmatic manner and to be ascribed the meaning in a reasonable way. Such expressions cannot put deterrence to the action to be taken by the statutory committee nor the restrictive interpretation should be assigned to whittle down the object of constituting the search and selection committee. The Court held that Rule 3 of the 2023 Rules, which governs the selection process, does not explicitly bar a reconstituted committee from starting the selection process afresh. Instead, it vests broad discretionary powers in the committee to act “as it may deem fit” during the selection. The Court observed that the expression must be interpreted pragmatically, not restrictively, as doing so would defeat the very purpose of constituting such a high-level search and selection committee for GSTAT. Court’s Observation The court while Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India & Ors vs Kali Dass Batish & Anr, emphasized that the constitutional authority’s acceptance of an IB report deeming a candidate unsuitable cannot be easily disregarded. The High Court ruled that there is no legal bar to a reconstituted Search and Selection Committee undertaking the entire selection process anew. The Court emphasized that suitability, integrity, and transparency are paramount, especially in appointments to judicial tribunals. The petition was dismissed, allowing the selection process to proceed afresh under the reconstituted committee. Case Details Case Title: Pranaya Kishore Harichandan Versus UOI Case No.: W.P.(C). NO.15220 OF 2025 Date: 26.06.2025 Counsel For Petitioner: Susanta Kumar Dash, Sr. Advocate appearing along with Mr. Prabin Das, Advocate Counsel For Respondent: Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI along with Mr. D. Gochhayat, CGC Click Here To Read Order

Search-cum-selection committee

No posts to display

BREAKING | Mandatory To Provide 1 Month Gap Between ITR (Audit) Date And Tax Audit Date : Gujarat High Court

Refund of Special Additional Duty Can’t Be Denied On Limitation Grounds: CESTAT

Commercial Tax Dept. raids firecracker warehouses disguised as astrologers