Approved select panel cannot be ignored for a statutory tribunal vacancy without justification; arbitrary fresh selection violates Article 14.

A statutory vacancy in the Appellate Tribunal was required to be filled expeditiously under the Delhi Sales-tax Act, and the administrative memorandum was treated as supporting that object. Where an approved select panel remained operative and the appellant was the only other recommended candidate after the first appointee left office, the appointing authority could not ignore the panel and begin a fresh selection without a justifiable reason. Such unexplained departure from the approved procedure was treated as arbitrary State action and inconsistent with Article 14.

---

---

Issues: Whether the authorities were bound to fill the vacancy in the Appellate Tribunal from the approved panel and whether the fresh selection process was valid.

Analysis: Section 13(4) of the Delhi Sales-tax Act required vacancies in the membership of the Appellate Tribunal to be filled as soon as practicable. The Office Memorandum of 14.5.1987 was read as an administrative instruction intended to secure that statutory object, particularly where a vacancy arose within six months of a candidate joining and the post could not suitably be kept vacant. The approved panel contained two names, the appellant being the only other recommended candidate after the first appointee left office. No valid reason was shown for ignoring the approved panel and initiating a fresh selection. Such disregard of an accepted panel, in the absence of justification, was held to be arbitrary and inconsistent with the requirement of fair State action under Article 14.

Conclusion: The refusal to appoint the appellant and the initiation of a fresh selection process were invalid, arbitrary, and unconstitutional, and the appellant was entitled to appointment from the approved panel.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory vacancy is required to be filled expeditiously and an approved select panel remains operative, the appointing authority cannot ignore that panel and resort to a fresh selection without a justifiable reason; such arbitrary departure from the declared procedure offends Article 14.

---