Selection panel candidates have no vested right to appointment, but authorities cannot ignore recommendations when vacancies exist.

A selectee on a panel for Judicial Member of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has no vested right to appointment, but the appointing authority must consider the panel promptly and cannot ignore it or withhold appointment arbitrarily when vacancies exist. Unexplained delay in processing recommendations by the Central Government was unjustified, and unsupported assumptions about reservation or another officer's lien could not justify non-appointment. However, on the facts, no direction for appointment was granted to the appellant, who ranked fourth, because the higher-ranked candidates had either not joined or were no longer in the field.

---

---

Issues: Whether a candidate included in a selection panel for Judicial Member of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was entitled to appointment when vacancies arose and the Government delayed consideration of the panel recommendations.

Analysis: A selectee on a panel has no vested right to appointment, but the appointing authority cannot ignore the panel or decline appointment arbitrarily when vacancies are available. The selection made by a Board headed by a sitting Judge of the Court required prompt consideration by the Central Government, and unexplained delay in processing the recommendation was unjustified. The Court also held that where vacancies became available, the Government could not withhold appointment on unsupported assumptions about reservation or lien of another officer. At the same time, on the facts, the Court found it inappropriate to direct appointment of the appellant, who stood at serial no. 4, since the higher-ranked candidates had either not joined or were no longer in the field.

Conclusion: The Government's inaction and refusal to consider the panel properly were held unjustified, but no direction for appointment was granted to the appellant.

---