Reservation not mandatory for CESTAT technical member selection where rules and government orders excluded roster application.

Reservation was not mandatorily applicable to appointment as Member (Technical) of CESTAT under Section 129(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 and the 1987 Recruitment Rules. Rule 21 preserved only such reservations and concessions as were required by Central Government orders, and the record showed that the Government had excluded Judicial and Technical Members from reservation orders while directing due consideration of eligible SC/ST officers. The post was treated as a selection post, the choice was made by a high-level committee headed by a Supreme Court Judge, and no specific CESTAT rule created a roster-based right to appointment. The challenge to non-selection therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rule of reservation was mandatorily applicable to appointment to the post of Member (Technical) in CESTAT, and whether the non-selection of the applicant was legally unsustainable on the ground of reservation.

Analysis: The appointment process was governed by Section 129(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Members Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1987. Rule 21 saved only such reservations, relaxations and concessions as were required to be provided under Central Government orders, but the material on record showed that the Government had excluded the posts of Judicial and Technical Members of CESTAT from the operation of reservation orders, while directing that the claims of eligible SC/ST officers be duly considered. The post was treated as a selection post, the selection was made by a high-level committee headed by a sitting Judge of the Supreme Court, and there was no specific provision in the CESTAT rules mandating reservation. The applicant's reliance on the existence of caste details in the application form, and on reservation practice in another tribunal, did not establish a legal right to appointment by roster.

Conclusion: The rule of reservation was held not to be mandatorily applicable to the appointment in question, and the challenge to the non-selection failed.

---