Tribunal orders fresh selection process for CESTAT Judicial Member posts, considering all eligible candidates.

The Tribunal set aside the selection process for two Judicial Member posts in CESTAT due to non-consideration of the second Respondent. The Applicant, selected for one post, was not party to the previous OA challenging the process. The Tribunal's order was challenged to complete the appointment as per original selection, considering the second Respondent for the remaining vacancy. The Tribunal allowed a fresh selection process, including all eligible candidates, and directed a new interview for one post, determining seniority based on performance.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge to the order setting aside the selection process for filling up two posts of Judicial Members in CESTAT.
2. Applicant's grievance regarding not being made a party in the previous OA.
3. Dispute over the age eligibility of the second Respondent.
4. Approval of the Applicant's selection by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet.
5. Quashing of the vacancy notice dated 19-7-2008 and directions for a fresh interview process.

Issue 1:
The Tribunal had set aside the entire selection process for filling up two posts of Judicial Members in CESTAT due to the non-consideration of the second Respondent. The Applicant, who was selected for one of the posts, was not made a party in the previous OA challenging the selection process. The Applicant sought to set aside the Tribunal's order and complete the appointment process as per the original selection, considering the second Respondent for the remaining vacancy.

Issue 2:
The Applicant raised concerns about not being informed to the Tribunal that he had already been selected for one of the two posts at the time of the previous OA. The Applicant argued that had this information been disclosed, the entire selection would not have been set aside, claiming a violation of natural justice. The Applicant proposed that he be considered for the remaining vacancy, along with the second Respondent and other candidates, with seniority based on interview performance.

Issue 3:
The second Respondent contested his non-invitation for the interview due to age eligibility disputes. The Tribunal held that rejecting his candidature solely based on age criteria was unreasonable and illegal. It allowed the OA, setting aside the selection process but permitting a fresh selection where all eligible candidates, including the Applicant and the second Respondent, could participate.

Issue 4:
The Applicant's selection for the post of Judicial Member in CESTAT had been approved by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet. This approval was crucial in the context of the ongoing legal proceedings and the need for a fair resolution regarding the selection process and vacancies.

Issue 5:
The Tribunal quashed the vacancy notice dated 19-7-2008 and directed the first Respondent to conduct a fresh interview for one post of Judicial Member in CESTAT. The second Respondent and other candidates who had appeared in the previous interview were to be included. The inter se seniority between the Applicant and the second Respondent would be determined based on their interview performance, with compliance expected within three months of the order.

This detailed analysis of the legal judgment highlights the key issues, arguments, and decisions made by the Tribunal, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the case and its implications.

---