9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Selection process for the post of Judicial Member, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal; Failure of Central Government to make appointments promptly; Validity of recommendations made by Selection Board; Interpretation of Rules governing the appointment process. Analysis: The judgment deals with an appeal related to the selection of candidates for the position of Judicial Member, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Selection Board, headed by a sitting Judge of the Supreme Court, prepared a panel of selected candidates, including the appellant. The Central Government did not make any appointments promptly, leading to a delay in the process. The appellant filed an Original Application seeking appointment based on the select-panel prepared in 1988. The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed the application, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court. The appellant, an advocate registered with the Bar in Delhi, applied for one of the three posts of Judicial Members advertised by the Ministry of Law and Justice in 1987. The interviews were held in January 1988, and the Selection Board recommended candidates to the Central Government. However, due to various reasons, including the non-availability of a suitable Scheduled Tribe candidate, the process was delayed. The Central Government contended that the vacancies anticipated in 1988-89 were altered due to changes in retirement age and the availability of unexpected vacancies. The Central Government's delay in initiating actions to fill the vacancies was criticized by the Court. The judgment emphasized the importance of promptly processing recommendations of Selection Boards, especially those headed by sitting Judges of the Court. The Court directed that such recommendations must be placed before the Appointments Committee of Cabinet expeditiously, preferably within two months from the date of recommendation. The Court also addressed the issue of the validity of the select-panel and the rights of candidates on the panel. While a candidate on the select-panel does not have a vested right to appointment, the appointing authority must consider the panel and make appointments based on merit and availability of vacancies. In this case, the Central Government's inaction and failure to provide justifiable reasons for not making appointments were deemed unjustified. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the appeal, reversed the findings of the Central Administrative Tribunal, and directed the Central Government to pay costs to the appellant. The judgment highlighted the importance of following a time-bound procedure in dealing with select-panels and emphasized the need for prompt and justified actions in appointment processes governed by specific rules and regulations.
|
