9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 1057 - HC - Income TaxSelection of Members of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Applications for appointment to the posts of Member (Judicial/Accountant), Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) - After first round of interviews, the Search-Cum-Selection Committee decided to call the candidates with 19 years of experience in the second round of interview, which is under challenge in these petitions. - HELD THAT - This Court is of the view that Rule 4A of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Members (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1963 empowers the Search-Cum-Selection Committee to evolve its own procedure. It is not in dispute that on conjoint reading of Section 252 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Rule Rule 4A of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Members (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1963, the candidates with less than 20 years of experience can be short-listed and called for interview. In that view of the matter, the decision of the Search-Cum-Selection Committee to short-list candidates with 19 years of experience cannot be said to be arbitrary. Reference be made to Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Navnit Kumar Potdar 1994 (9) TMI 363 - 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. 9. There is no merit in both these writ petitions which are hereby dismissed. Pending applications are disposed of.
Issues:
Challenge to selection process for the post of Member of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Interpretation of qualifications for Judicial Member as per circular dated 06th July, 2018. Dispute over Search-Cum-Selection Committee's decision to call candidates with 19 years of experience for the second round of interviews. Authority of Search-Cum-Selection Committee to evolve its own procedure under Rule 4A of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Members (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1963. Analysis: The petitioners contested the selection process for the post of Member of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, specifically challenging the circular's qualifications for the Judicial Member role. The circular outlined stringent requirements, including judicial office holding for at least ten years, membership in the Indian Legal Service, or ten years of advocacy experience. The Search-Cum-Selection Committee (SCSC) invoked Rule 4A of the Recruitment Rules, enabling them to establish their selection procedure. The SCSC decided to shortlist candidates based on specific criteria, including years of experience, and called for interviews accordingly. The petitioners, dissatisfied with the SCSC's decision to call candidates with 19 years of experience for the second round of interviews, argued that the SCSC should consider all candidates meeting the experience criteria. They contended that fixing a ceiling of 19 years was unjust and sought to set aside the SCSC's decision. The respondents, however, maintained that the SCSC had the authority to set its procedure as per Rule 4A and could shortlist candidates below 20 years of experience. They also questioned the petitioners' standing to challenge the decision based on their experience levels. The Court analyzed the relevant provisions, noting that Rule 4A empowered the SCSC to establish its procedure. It clarified that candidates with less than 20 years of experience could be shortlisted and interviewed, validating the SCSC's decision to call candidates with 19 years of experience. The Court referenced a previous case to support the SCSC's discretion in shortlisting candidates based on experience. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petitions, finding no merit in the challenges raised. The judgment concluded by directing the distribution of copies to the counsels involved.
|
