9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (5) TMI 972 - HC - Income TaxSelection process for three posts of the Vice-President of the ITAT Petitioner not selected - Whether the manner of selection, including the decision-making process adopted by the Selection Committee, is consistent with the terms of the Service Rules or not Held that - The Selection Committee did not conduct interviews or meet the candidates at any point in the selection process, nor were orders written by the candidates in their capacity as members of the ITAT placed before the Selection Committee - The only material before the Selection Committee was the Annual Confidential Reports ( ACRs ) of the candidates - Office Memorandum in question marks a departure from the previous nomenclature, and prescribes a clear procedure for selection , as grading followed by seniority, it is important first and foremost to note the terms of Rule 7C, which is the primary rule applicable. Seniority is not completely excluded from the selection process - The zone of consideration prepared as the first step in the process was on the basis of seniority, as the minutes of the Selection Committee clearly recorded. However, there is no independent requirement - either statutory or constitutional - to consider seniority - Even independently, given the array of responsibilities assumed by the Vice-President of the ITAT, the importance of merit cannot be downplayed in any manner - there was no comparison chart prepared by the Selection Committee, nor was any material other than the ACRs before it, the ACRs - as it appears from the record - constituted the only basis on which the decision was made Thus, the ACR grading was important - The ACR remarks for the five years preceding the selection process indicate that Mr.Tolani had five Very Good remarks, Mr. Yadav had one Very Good and four Good remarks. The Selection Committee was not bound by the ACRs, it adopted some other consideration in the absence of any material - The Selection Committee could have adopted the view that the petitioners were not merited, if it formed the opinion on the basis of other material present before it, as for example, sample judgments of the members, their disposal rates, cases turned on appeal etc. - If such a course had been followed, the assessment of the Selection Committee would lie outside the Court s limited power of judicial review - no material was before the Selection Committee which could testify as to those factors, and since none of the candidates were interviewed by the Selection Committee (which did not have any occasion to interact with them), the comparative merit as judged by the ACRs leads to a conclusion contrary to that returned by the Selection Committee. Here, the Court recognizes that the Selection Committee - as an administrative body - does not have to give reasons for accepting the five candidates in question, and rejecting the two writ petitioners. A robust and comprehensive process that considers various factors that touch upon the merit of the candidates, thus, is crucial in such cases, especially given the high office to which they are to be selected - the Central Government s position was that even though materials other than the character rolls (ACRs) of the candidates was not considered while at the same time the ACR gradings were not conclusive, it was also contended that given the wide experience in income tax matters of the Chairman, i.e. Justice Kapadia (who later became the Chief Justice of India) and his having considered numerous orders of the ITAT, as well as the experience of the President of ITAT - there was sufficient knowledge about the candidates merit, to warrant the selection. Members of tribunals such as the ITAT perform crucial judicial functions, which can have an adverse bearing on individuals, and at times, vast commercial and fiscal ramifications - the Central Government should seriously consider continuous oversight through the concerned High Courts, given that High Courts exercise appellate jurisdiction over the orders and proceedings of ITAT and its benches - Some reporting mechanism, preferably centralized, to oversee the quality of the orders of ITAT is essential because the President of ITAT s powers over members of ITAT and Vice President are not appellate, they are administrative - Creation of this mechanism would result in adding a new and possibly crucial dimension to ensure greater scrutiny of ITAT and its orders and also provide a link in the decision making process of selection to senior judicial positions within ITAT Decided against Petitioner.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appointment of Vice-Presidents of the ITAT was by way of direct recruitment or promotion. 2. Whether the failure to notify the new pay scales after the merger of pay scales of members and Vice-Presidents vitiated the decision-making process. 3. Whether the Selection Committee exceeded its jurisdiction by evolving its own procedure and terms for selection. 4. Whether the Selection Committee's decision-making process was flawed due to the lack of a comparative chart or other material for assessing candidates. Detailed Analysis: 1. Direct Recruitment vs. Promotion: The petitioners contended that the appointment of Vice-Presidents should be considered direct recruitment, necessitating reservation for OBCs. The CAT, however, held that these appointments were promotions by way of selection from existing members. The relevant rules indicated that the President, Senior Vice-President, and Vice-President are to be selected from amongst existing members, thus constituting a promotion rather than direct recruitment. The CAT's interpretation was consistent with the rules, which specified selection by merit for these positions. 2. Pay Scale Notification: The petitioners argued that the failure to notify the new pay scales, which merged the pay scales of members and Vice-Presidents, invalidated the selection process. The CAT found no merit in this argument, stating that even if the Selection Committee was aware of the new pay scales, it would not have altered the necessity for selection based on merit. The pay scale parity did not equate the roles of members and Vice-Presidents, as the latter still required a selection process as per the rules. 3. Selection Committee's Jurisdiction: The petitioners claimed that the Selection Committee exceeded its jurisdiction by evolving its own selection procedures. The CAT rejected this, noting that the selection method by merit allowed the Selection Committee to adopt its procedures. The CAT emphasized that the conditions of service do not encompass the method of recruitment or selection, thus the Selection Committee was within its rights to determine its procedure. 4. Decision-Making Process: The petitioners argued that the Selection Committee did not prepare a comparative chart or consider other material beyond ACRs, making the process flawed. The CAT, relying on Supreme Court precedents, held that the Selection Committee's function is administrative, not judicial, and it is not required to record reasons or prepare comparative charts. The CAT emphasized that the absence of allegations of bias or favoritism reinforced the validity of the selection process. Petitioners' Contentions: The petitioners argued that the failure to notify the new pay scales and the restrictive interpretation of Rule 13 by the CAT invalidated the selection process. They contended that the Selection Committee should have considered seniority and other factors beyond ACRs. They also argued that the CAT's findings were inconsistent and that the Selection Committee should have provided reasons for its decisions. Respondents' Contentions: The respondents, represented by the ASG, argued that the CAT's findings were reasonable and that the Selection Committee, being an administrative body, was not required to provide reasons for its decisions. The ASG emphasized that the selection was based on merit, and there were no allegations of bias or arbitrariness in the process. Analysis and Findings: The Court noted the importance of the Service Rules and the hierarchical distinction between members and Vice-Presidents despite pay scale parity. The Court found that the Selection Committee's decision-making process, based solely on ACRs, was not unreasonable. The Court emphasized that the Selection Committee, comprising experienced and knowledgeable members, was competent to assess the candidates' merit. The absence of additional material or interviews did not invalidate the process, given the Committee's administrative nature and the lack of allegations of bias. Conclusion: The Court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the CAT's decision. The Court suggested that the Central Government consider evolving guidelines for future selections to ensure a comprehensive and objective assessment of candidates. The Court also recommended oversight by the concerned High Courts to ensure the quality of ITAT orders and provide a link in the decision-making process for senior judicial positions within ITAT.
|
