Court upholds Search-Cum-Selection Committee's authority to set procedure under Rule 4A.

The Court upheld the Search-Cum-Selection Committee's authority to set its own procedure under Rule 4A of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Members Recruitment Rules. It affirmed the Committee's decision to call candidates with 19 years of experience for the second round of interviews, rejecting the petitioners' argument that all candidates meeting the experience criteria should be considered. The Court found the Committee's actions valid, dismissing the writ petitions challenging the selection process for the post of Member of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to selection process for the post of Member of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Interpretation of qualifications for Judicial Member as per circular dated 06th July, 2018. Dispute over Search-Cum-Selection Committee's decision to call candidates with 19 years of experience for the second round of interviews. Authority of Search-Cum-Selection Committee to evolve its own procedure under Rule 4A of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Members (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1963.

Analysis:
The petitioners contested the selection process for the post of Member of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, specifically challenging the circular's qualifications for the Judicial Member role. The circular outlined stringent requirements, including judicial office holding for at least ten years, membership in the Indian Legal Service, or ten years of advocacy experience. The Search-Cum-Selection Committee (SCSC) invoked Rule 4A of the Recruitment Rules, enabling them to establish their selection procedure. The SCSC decided to shortlist candidates based on specific criteria, including years of experience, and called for interviews accordingly.

The petitioners, dissatisfied with the SCSC's decision to call candidates with 19 years of experience for the second round of interviews, argued that the SCSC should consider all candidates meeting the experience criteria. They contended that fixing a ceiling of 19 years was unjust and sought to set aside the SCSC's decision. The respondents, however, maintained that the SCSC had the authority to set its procedure as per Rule 4A and could shortlist candidates below 20 years of experience. They also questioned the petitioners' standing to challenge the decision based on their experience levels.

The Court analyzed the relevant provisions, noting that Rule 4A empowered the SCSC to establish its procedure. It clarified that candidates with less than 20 years of experience could be shortlisted and interviewed, validating the SCSC's decision to call candidates with 19 years of experience. The Court referenced a previous case to support the SCSC's discretion in shortlisting candidates based on experience. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petitions, finding no merit in the challenges raised. The judgment concluded by directing the distribution of copies to the counsels involved.

---