2025 (6) TMI 348 - HC - GST

Selective Candidate Interactions in GST Tribunal Appointment Process Challenged as Procedurally Irregular and Potentially Unfair

Pranaya Kishore Harichandan Versus Union of India and Others

Pranaya Kishore Harichandan Versus Union of India and Others - TMI 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered by the Court in this matter are:(a) Whether the Search-cum-Selection Committee, constituted under the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (Appointment and Conditions of Service of President and Members) Rules, 2023 ('the Rules'), has the authority to conduct further personal interactions with some shortlisted candidates after an initial personal interaction has been completed;(b) Whether the procedure adopted by the Committee in calling certain shortlisted candidates for a second round of personal interaction, while excluding others who had earlier appeared, is consistent with the provisions of sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 of the Rules;(c) Whether the Committee's act of making a classification among shortlisted candidates and conducting further personal interaction with only a select few violates the principles of fairness and the statutory mandate under the Rules;(d) Whether the Court should intervene in the selection process at this stage, given the petitioner's grievance regarding procedural irregularity.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue (a) and (b): Authority of the Search-cum-Selection Committee to conduct further personal interaction and the legality of such procedureRelevant legal framework and precedents:The applicable legal framework is primarily the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (Appointment and Conditions of Service of President and Members) Rules, 2023. Specifically, sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 prescribes the selection procedure:'The Committee shall make its recommendations based on the overall assessment of eligible candidates including assessment through the personal interaction after taking into account the suitability, record of past performance, integrity as well as adjudicating and experience keeping in view the requirements of the Tribunal and shall recommend a panel of two names for every post for which selection is being done in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (6) of section 110 of the Act.'There is no express provision in sub-rule (4) or elsewhere in the Rules authorizing a further classification of shortlisted candidates or a second round of personal interaction.While the Rules do not explicitly forbid multiple rounds of interaction, the language suggests a single comprehensive assessment through personal interaction as part of the overall evaluation.Court's interpretation and reasoning:The Court observed that the Rules contemplate a single stage of personal interaction as part of the overall assessment. The phrase 'including assessment through the personal interaction' indicates that personal interaction is a component of the overall evaluation process, not a multi-stage or selective process.The Court reasoned that once the Committee completes the personal interaction with all shortlisted candidates, it is mandated to make recommendations based on the overall assessment. Conducting a further personal interaction with only some candidates amounts to a classification or segregation not contemplated by the Rules.This selective further interaction potentially violates the principle of equal treatment of all shortlisted candidates and undermines the transparency and fairness of the selection process.Key evidence and findings:The petitioner submitted that he appeared before the Committee pursuant to the initial intimation for personal interaction. Subsequently, the Committee issued fresh intimation to only some shortlisted candidates for further personal interaction scheduled on 31st May 2025, excluding the petitioner.The petitioner contended that this procedure is inconsistent with sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 and is arbitrary.The opposite parties did not deny the procedure but sought time to obtain instructions and justify the further interaction.Application of law to facts:The Court applied the statutory language of the Rules to the facts and found that the Committee's act of conducting a selective further personal interaction is not supported by the Rules. The Rules envisage a single personal interaction stage as part of the overall assessment, not a two-tier interaction with classification among shortlisted candidates.Treatment of competing arguments:The petitioner argued that the procedure violates the Rules and is unfair. The respondents contended that the Committee has the power to conduct further personal interaction and that the procedure is valid.The Court noted the respondents' request for adjournment to obtain detailed instructions but found prima facie merit in the petitioner's contention that the procedure is irregular.Conclusions:The Court concluded that the Rules do not empower the Committee to conduct further personal interaction selectively among shortlisted candidates after an initial personal interaction. The procedure adopted by the Committee is therefore prima facie irregular and calls for judicial scrutiny.Issue (c): Fairness and statutory compliance of the selection procedureRelevant legal framework and precedents:Appointment procedures for judicial members must comply with statutory mandates and principles of natural justice, including fairness, transparency, and equal opportunity.Court's interpretation and reasoning:The Court emphasized that the selection process must be free from arbitrariness and discrimination. The selective further personal interaction undermines the equal treatment of candidates and the integrity of the process.Key evidence and findings:The petitioner's exclusion from the further interaction, despite earlier participation, raises questions about the rationale and fairness of the Committee's approach.Application of law to facts:The Court found that the procedure adopted violates the principles of fairness and is inconsistent with the statutory scheme.Treatment of competing arguments:The respondents did not provide a substantive legal basis for the selective further interaction, seeking only time for instructions.Conclusions:The Court found that the procedure as adopted is unfair and not in consonance with the Rules and principles of natural justice.Issue (d): Judicial intervention in the selection processRelevant legal framework and precedents:Judicial intervention in administrative or quasi-judicial selection processes is warranted where there is a prima facie case of procedural irregularity or violation of statutory provisions.Court's interpretation and reasoning:The Court found a prima facie case in favor of the petitioner and issued notice to the opposite parties. It directed that the selection process may continue but no final decision shall be taken till the next date, thereby preserving the status quo and ensuring that the petitioner's grievance is adequately considered.Key evidence and findings:The petitioner's detailed submissions and the absence of a clear statutory provision for the further interaction justified judicial scrutiny.Application of law to facts:The Court balanced the interest of the parties and the institutional need for timely selection by allowing the process to continue but restraining finalization.Treatment of competing arguments:The respondents' request for adjournment was granted, but the Court maintained oversight through interim directions.Conclusions:The Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction to ensure compliance with the Rules and fairness in the selection process.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS'The Committee shall make its recommendations based on the overall assessment of eligible candidates including assessment through the personal interaction after taking into account the suitability, record of past performance, integrity as well as adjudicating and experience keeping in view the requirements of the Tribunal and shall recommend a panel of two names for every post for which selection is being done...'This provision was interpreted to mean a single comprehensive personal interaction stage as part of the overall assessment, not a selective or multi-stage process.The Court held that the Search-cum-Selection Committee does not have the power under the Rules to classify shortlisted candidates and conduct further personal interaction with only some of them, excluding others who had earlier appeared.The procedure adopted by the Committee in this regard is prima facie irregular and violates the principles of fairness and statutory mandate.The Court directed that while the selection process may continue, no final decision shall be taken until further orders, thereby preserving the petitioner's right to a fair and equitable process.