2019 (5) TMI 1275 - HC - Income Tax

Selection process for the post of Member of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - eligibility criteria prescribed under Sub-sections (2) and 2(A) of Section 252 of the Income Tax Act - interim Search-cum-Selection Committee decided to call 24 most experienced applicants who were practicing Advocates for interview - HELD THAT - Rule 4A of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Members (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1963 empowers the Selection Board to evolve its own procedure. The aforesaid Rules are not subject matter of challenge before this Court. The decision of the Committee to short-list the candidates is reasonable and not arbitrary. Reference be made to Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Navnit Kumar Potdar 1994 (9) TMI - SUPREME COURT in which the Supreme Court upheld the action of Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission to call for interview only 71 applicants out of 188 applicants on the ground that only candidates with 7 years experience be called for interview whereas five years experience was the eligibility criteria.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging selection process for the post of Member of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal based on qualifications and short-listing criteria.

Analysis:
1. Qualifications for Judicial Member: The circular dated 06th July, 2018 outlined qualifications for the post of Judicial Member of ITAT, requiring either 10 years of judicial office in India, membership in Indian Legal Service, or 10 years of advocacy. The petitioners challenged the selection process, claiming arbitrariness and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

2. Selection Process: The Search-Cum-Selection Committee (SCSC) invoked Rule 4A of the ITAT Members Rules, 1963, allowing them to set their own selection procedure. The Committee decided to short-list candidates based on experience and completeness of applications, calling for interviews only the most experienced applicants. The petitioners argued that the process lacked transparency and discriminated against candidates without clear criteria.

3. Legal Arguments: Petitioners contended that changing selection criteria midstream was unfair and violated the Income Tax Act's eligibility provisions. They cited various legal precedents to support their claim of discrimination and lack of intelligible differentia in short-listing candidates. Respondents defended the process, asserting that the Committee had the authority to set selection criteria and short-list candidates based on experience and completeness of applications.

4. Court's Decision: The Court upheld the legality of Rule 4A empowering the Selection Board to devise its selection procedure. Referring to precedent, the Court found the short-listing decision reasonable and not arbitrary. It dismissed the petitions, noting that one petitioner's late application and another's insufficient experience justified their exclusion from the interview process. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to prescribed deadlines and eligibility criteria in such selection processes.

5. Precedents and Conclusion: The Court referenced legal precedents supporting the short-listing of candidates based on rational and reasonable criteria when faced with a large number of applications. The judgment highlighted the need for adherence to rules and regulations in recruitment processes to ensure fairness and transparency. Both writ petitions were dismissed, affirming the legality and reasonableness of the selection process adopted by the SCSC.