2015 (3) TMI 897 - SC - Indian Laws

Appointment of Accountant Members in ITAT - Held that - Notwithstanding the statement made on behalf of the Union of India before this Court that vacancies in the future will be made only after the amendments in the Rules are carried out, the Union of India has initiated a process to make further appointments without amending the Rules. If persons eligible under the then existing Rules which are in force even today are to be considered for appointment, surely, the petitioner, who is a wait-listed candidate, will also have to be considered for appointment by consideration of his entitlement for appointment as in the year 2007 when the appointments on the main-list were made and the two vacancies arose giving rise to the issue of operation of the waiting list. What follows from the above is that even accepting the order passed by this Court in 2011 (11) TMI 49 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , in view of the subsequent facts and events that have occurred, namely, action of the Union of India in resorting to a fresh process of selection and appointment without amendment of the Rules, the right of the petitioner to be considered for appointment on the basis of his position in the Waiting List has once again come to fore which needs to be resolved by an appropriate order. - Decided in favour of Appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Writ petition under Article 32 seeking reliefs for appointment as Accountant Member of ITAT.
2. Dispute over appointment from a waiting list after main list appointments.
3. Consideration of entitlement for appointment based on position in the Waiting List.
4. Union of India's initiation of further appointments without amending the Rules.
5. Resolution of the petitioner's right to be considered for appointment based on the Waiting List position.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking a writ of mandamus for appointment as Accountant Member of ITAT based on a selection list from 2005. The case involved a history of selection processes and legal challenges.

2. A distinction was made between the main list and the waiting list candidates for appointments. The Supreme Court decided not to affirm directions for wait-listed candidates' appointments due to pending rule amendments. However, the Union of India initiated further appointments without amending the Rules, leading to the petitioner's right to be considered for appointment from the Waiting List.

3. Despite previous judgments, the Court acknowledged that the petitioner, as a wait-listed candidate, should be considered for appointment based on the existing Rules. The petitioner's entitlement for appointment arose due to vacancies from the main list not being filled, necessitating resolution of the Waiting List issue.

4. The Court noted that the Union of India proceeded with fresh selections without amending the Rules, contrary to previous statements. This discrepancy highlighted the need to address the petitioner's right for appointment based on the Waiting List position and the existing Rules in force.

5. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition, directing the concerned Authority to consider the petitioner for appointment within 30 days based on his position in the Waiting List against the vacant posts. The resolution aimed to address the petitioner's entitlement for appointment in light of the vacancies and the Union of India's actions.

This detailed analysis of the legal judgment outlines the issues, historical context, judicial decisions, and the final resolution regarding the petitioner's appointment as an Accountant Member of ITAT based on the Waiting List position.