2011 (11) TMI 49 - SC - Income Tax

Appointment of Accountant Members in ITAT - new Rule 4(a) - The High Court, however, has held that the amendment inserting Rule 4(a) of the Rules did not in any way disqualify the three candidates placed in the wait list to be appointed as Members of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. - The High Court lost sight of the fact that Rule 4(a) had already been inserted in the Rules by notification dated 26.04.2004 and therefore this could not be the amendment which was in the mind of the Appointments Committee when it took the decisions on 26.04.2006 and 31.08.2007 to make further appointments only after the Rules were amended. - the circumstances in which this Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition against the order of the Madras High Court no longer subsisted after the Appointments Committee approved the appointment of the 16 selected candidates so as to warrant a direction by the Delhi High Court to the Central Government to appoint the 3 wait-listed candidates as members of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the wait-listed candidates' right to appointment.
2. Compliance with the amended recruitment rules.
3. Justifiability of the Central Government's decision to delay further appointments until rule amendments.
4. Interpretation of judicial precedents regarding selection and appointment processes.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the wait-listed candidates' right to appointment:

The appellants argued that inclusion in a select list or wait list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment, citing precedents such as *Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India*, *Asha Kaul v. State of Jammu and Kashmir*, and *Sanjoy Bhattacharjee v. Union of India*. The Supreme Court reiterated that a person on the select panel has no vested right to be appointed but has the right to be considered for appointment. The High Court, however, had directed the Union of India to process the case for the appointment of the wait-listed candidates, which was challenged by the appellants.

2. Compliance with the amended recruitment rules:

The High Court held that the recruitment rules of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had already been amended, and there was nothing in the amendment that disqualified the wait-listed candidates from being appointed. The appellants contended that the Appointments Committee decided not to make any further appointments until the rules were amended, which was a decision taken in view of the proposed amendments discussed in the meetings of the Appointments Committee.

3. Justifiability of the Central Government's decision to delay further appointments until rule amendments:

The Central Government, through the Appointments Committee, decided that no further appointments would be made until the recruitment rules were amended. The Supreme Court noted that the Central Government is both the rule-making and appointing authority under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court found it difficult to hold that the reason given by the Central Government for not making any further appointments was not justifiable or proper. The High Court's direction to appoint the wait-listed candidates was thus set aside.

4. Interpretation of judicial precedents regarding selection and appointment processes:

The High Court and the Central Administrative Tribunal relied on precedents such as *R.S. Mittal v. Union of India* and *A.P. Aggarwal v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi*, which emphasized that the appointing authority cannot ignore the select-panel without justifiable reasons. However, the Supreme Court clarified that each case must be considered on its own merits. The Court noted that the immediate need for filling vacancies was met with the appointment of 16 selected candidates and that the circumstances had changed since the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition against the Madras High Court's order.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment of the Delhi High Court and the common judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, dismissing the Original Applications. The appeals were allowed, and it was determined that the Central Government's decision to delay further appointments until rule amendments was justifiable. The Court emphasized the need to consider each case on its own merits and acknowledged the Central Government's authority in making such decisions.

← Previous Next →