9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (8) TMI 477 - HC - Income TaxAppointment of respondents 4 and 5 to the office of the Vice President of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - principal objection of the petitioner is that these interim orders of the Apex Court do not apply to an appointment made on 22.01.2020 - HELD THAT - Upon perusal of the minutes of the Search-cum-Selection Committee meeting on 08.04.2019, it is clear that the Search-cum-Selection Committee took into account the interim order of the Supreme Court in KUDRAT SANDHU VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 2018 (3) TMI 643 - SUPREME COURT which was part of the ROJER MATHEW VERSUS SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. OTHERS 2019 (11) TMI 716 - SUPREME COURT batch, and proceeded to record that the said interim order mandated that all appointments made pursuant to the selection by the interim Search-cum-Selection Committee shall abide by the conditions of service as per the old Act and the Rules. Thus, it is evident that the interim Search-cum-Selection Committee acted strictly in accordance with the interim orders passed in Rojer Mathew as subsequently recorded in MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATION VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ANR. 2020 (12) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT . The petitioner has completely failed to establish that the appointments are contrary to the relevant parent Act or the rules framed thereunder. Accordingly, there is no merit in the petitioner s challenge - Petition dismissed.
Issues:
Challenge to the appointment of respondents 4 and 5 to the office of the Vice President of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal based on the striking down of Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and Other Authorities (Qualification, Experience and other Conditions of Service of Members) Rules 2017 by the Supreme Court in Rojer Mathew vs. South Indian Bank Ltd. Analysis: The petitioner contested the appointment of respondents 4 and 5 to the Vice President office of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Rojer Mathew vs. South Indian Bank Ltd., where the Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and Other Authorities (Qualification, Experience and other Conditions of Service of Members) Rules 2017 were invalidated. The petitioner argued that the Search-cum-Selection Committee's constitution did not align with the Supreme Court's directives in Rojer Mathew or with the pre-existing laws. The petitioner claimed that the interim orders in Rojer Mathew did not validate the appointments of respondents 4 and 5, as those orders only applied to appointments pending during the disposal of the writ petitions in Rojer Mathew. The Union, on the other hand, contended that appointments made in compliance with interim directions were protected, referencing paragraphs from the judgment in Madras Bar Association vs. Union of India. The Supreme Court clarified that appointments made during the pendency of Rojer Mathew and after its judgment were to be governed by the existing parent Acts and Rules until the new Rules came into effect. The Search-cum-Selection Committee meeting minutes from 08.04.2019 indicated adherence to the interim orders of the Supreme Court, ensuring appointments followed the conditions of service under the old Act and Rules. The court analyzed the petitioner's objection, emphasizing that the interim orders applied to all appointments made before the 2020 Rules came into effect. The appointments made on 22.01.2020 were found to be in line with the Supreme Court's interim orders and directives. The petitioner failed to demonstrate any inconsistency with the relevant parent Act or rules, leading to the dismissal of the challenge. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. W.M.P.No.709 and 710 of 2021 were also closed.
|
