9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1999 (11) TMI 830 - SC - VAT and Sales TaxAppointment to the post of Member, Appellate Tribunal, Sales-tax - Held that - No hesitation in allowing the appeal and directing the respondents to appoint the appellant as Member, Sales-tax Appellate Tribunal as he is the only other person in the panel of names selected by the Select Committee and as nothing has been brought out against him by the Government. On the facts, we find that all the conditions set out in the office memorandum issued by the Central Government dated 14.5.1987 are fulfilled in the present case and the rejection of the appellant s name without any reason therefor is arbitrary and unconstitutional. The initiation of fresh process of selection is not valid and it is hereby quashed. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the Central Government's decision to issue a fresh advertisement for the post of Member, Appellate Tribunal, Sales-tax. 2. Interpretation of Section 13 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975. 3. Applicability and interpretation of the Government Office Memorandum dated 14.5.1987. 4. Right of the appellant to be appointed based on the earlier selection panel. 5. Arbitrariness and constitutionality of the Central Government's actions. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Central Government's decision to issue a fresh advertisement for the post of Member, Appellate Tribunal, Sales-tax: The appellant contended that the Central Government's decision to issue a fresh advertisement for the post was arbitrary and unjustified. The appellant had already been recommended by the Selection Committee along with Mr. M.L. Sahni, who later resigned the post. The Tribunal and the High Court dismissed the appellant's application and writ petition, respectively, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court. 2. Interpretation of Section 13 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975: Section 13(4) of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975, mandates that "Any vacancy in the membership of the Appellate Tribunal shall be filled up by the Central Government as soon as practicable." The Supreme Court emphasized the use of the word "shall," indicating a statutory duty on the Government to fill the vacancy promptly. The Court highlighted that the statutory provision is expressed in mandatory language, and the Government is obligated to act accordingly. 3. Applicability and interpretation of the Government Office Memorandum dated 14.5.1987: The Office Memorandum issued by the Central Government on 14.5.1987 was examined in conjunction with Section 13(4). The Memorandum allowed the operation of reserve lists for filling vacancies within six months of a candidate resigning or passing away. The Supreme Court noted that the Memorandum was issued to address difficulties in filling vacancies promptly and should be read in light of the statutory provision. The Court found that the conditions set out in the Memorandum were fulfilled in the present case, as the vacancy arose within six months of Mr. M.L. Sahni's resignation. 4. Right of the appellant to be appointed based on the earlier selection panel: The appellant argued that he had a right to be appointed based on the earlier selection panel, which included his name. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that the Government's decision to ignore the already approved and accepted panel without providing a valid reason was unjustified. The Court emphasized that the appellant had the right to be considered for appointment, and the Government could not arbitrarily resort to a fresh selection process. 5. Arbitrariness and constitutionality of the Central Government's actions: The Supreme Court held that the Government's actions were arbitrary and unconstitutional, violating Article 14 of the Constitution, which mandates that State actions must not be susceptible to arbitrariness. The Court cited previous judgments, including Shrilekha Vidyarthi vs. State of U.P., to support its decision. The Court concluded that the Government's initiation of a fresh selection process without valid reasons was arbitrary and quashed the fresh advertisement. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, directing the respondents to appoint the appellant as Member, Sales-tax Appellate Tribunal, as he was the only other person in the panel selected by the Select Committee. The Court found that all conditions set out in the Office Memorandum dated 14.5.1987 were fulfilled, and the rejection of the appellant's name without any reason was arbitrary and unconstitutional. The initiation of a fresh selection process was quashed, and the appeal was allowed with no costs.
|
