2025 (7) TMI 59 - HC - GST

GSTAT Member appointment procedure under Rule 3 upheld despite committee reconstitution challenges

Pranaya Kishore Harichandan Versus Union of India, The Goods and Service Tax Council New Delhi, The Search and Selection Committee Represented by its Member Secretary Department of Revenue, New Delhi.

Pranaya Kishore Harichandan Versus Union of India, The Goods and Service Tax Council New Delhi, The Search and Selection Committee Represented by its ... 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered by the Court are:(a) Whether the reconstituted Search-cum-Selection Committee, constituted under the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (Appointment and Conditions of Services of President and Members) Rules, 2023 ('the Rules, 2023'), was entitled to conduct the selection process de novo, including re-scrutinizing applications and shortlisting candidates afresh, or whether it was bound to continue the process from the stage where the earlier Committee had left off.(b) The interpretation and applicability of Rule 3 of the Rules, 2023, which governs the procedure for selection of Members and President of the GST Appellate Tribunal, particularly in the context of a reconstituted Committee.(c) Whether the Search-cum-Selection Committee's reliance on Intelligence Bureau (IB) reports and subsequent exclusion of the petitioner from the personal interaction stage was lawful and consistent with statutory provisions.(d) The extent of judicial review available over the selection process conducted by the Committee, especially in light of the principle that mere inclusion in a shortlist or select list does not create a vested right to appointment.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue (a) & (b): Interpretation of Rule 3 of the Rules, 2023 and the powers of the reconstituted CommitteeThe Court examined Rule 3, which sets out the procedure for selection of the President and Members of the GST Appellate Tribunal. The Rule mandates that the Committee may issue a vacancy circular specifying details such as number of vacancies, qualifications, salary, application format, and last date for filing applications. Upon receipt of applications, the Committee must scrutinize all applications and shortlist eligible candidates for personal interaction. The Committee then recommends a panel of two names for each post, based on an overall assessment including suitability, past performance, integrity, adjudicating experience, and Tribunal requirements.The Court noted that Rule 3 does not expressly address the procedure to be followed by a reconstituted Committee when the original Committee is replaced or resigns. The Rule's language, particularly the phrase 'as it may deem fit,' was interpreted pragmatically to allow the reconstituted Committee discretion in conducting the selection process. The Court emphasized that this discretion cannot be unduly restricted, nor can the Committee be compelled to continue the process strictly from where the previous Committee left off.The Court underscored the importance of harmonizing the sub-rules in Rule 3 to preserve the object and purpose of the Rules, which is to ensure a fair, transparent, and rigorous selection process. The prescribed application format and scrutiny mechanism aim to bring uniformity and thoroughness to the process. The personal interaction stage is critical for assessing candidates' suitability beyond mere credentials.Thus, the Court held that the reconstituted Committee was not statutorily barred from initiating a fresh scrutiny and shortlisting exercise, especially in the absence of any express provision to the contrary in the Rules.Issue (c): Legality of reliance on Intelligence Bureau reports and exclusion of the petitionerThe reconstituted Committee obtained confidential inputs from the Intelligence Bureau (IB) as part of its scrutiny process. Based on these inputs, the petitioner was excluded from the list of candidates called for personal interaction. The petitioner challenged this exclusion, contending that the Committee's action violated the statutory procedure and was arbitrary.The Court referred to binding precedent emphasizing the constitutional authority and primacy of the Intelligence Bureau's report in appointments to sensitive posts. It cited the principle that once the Intelligence Bureau's report is accepted by the competent Constitutional Authority, courts should not sit in appeal over its contents or question the suitability assessments contained therein. The Court highlighted that the Committee's reliance on IB inputs was a legitimate exercise of its statutory duty to ensure integrity and suitability of candidates for judicial or quasi-judicial posts.The Court rejected the petitioner's contention that the reconstituted Committee's fresh scrutiny and reliance on IB reports were illegal or arbitrary. It found that such action was within the Committee's discretion and necessary to uphold the high standards required for appointments to the Tribunal, which involves adjudication of rights within the statutory and constitutional framework.Issue (d): Extent of judicial review over the selection process and rights of candidatesThe Court reiterated the settled legal position that mere candidature or inclusion in a shortlist does not confer any vested or indefeasible right to appointment. The selection and appointment remain prerogatives of the statutory Committee and appointing authorities, subject to adherence to prescribed procedures and standards.The Court emphasized that judicial review in such matters is limited and does not extend to reappraising the merits of suitability or integrity assessments made by the competent authorities, especially when supported by confidential inputs from intelligence agencies.The Court noted that the petitioner's challenge was essentially an attempt to enforce a non-existent right to appointment, which is impermissible under established jurisprudence. Accordingly, the Court declined to interfere with the Committee's exercise of discretion in the selection process.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS'The expression 'as it may deem fit' has to be construed in a more pragmatic manner and to be ascribed the meaning in a reasonable way. Such expression cannot put deterrence to the action to be taken by the statutory Committee nor should the restrictive interpretation be assigned to whittle down the object of constituting the Committee.''Once the Constitutional Authority has accepted the report submitted by the Intelligence Bureau (IB) and did not find the candidate to be suitable to hold a highly responsible post, there is no justification in discarding such opinions expressed by the Constitutional Authority.''Mere inclusion of a candidate's name in the selection list gave him no right, and if there was no right, there could be no occasion to maintain a writ petition for enforcement of a non-existing right.'The Court established the principle that a reconstituted Search-cum-Selection Committee may, in absence of express statutory prohibition, initiate a fresh selection process, including scrutiny and shortlisting, to ensure suitability and integrity of candidates.The Court affirmed the primacy of Intelligence Bureau reports in the assessment of candidates for sensitive judicial or quasi-judicial appointments and held that courts should not interfere with such assessments unless there is manifest illegality.Finally, the Court confirmed that candidates do not acquire vested rights by mere application or shortlisting and that judicial review of selection processes is limited to procedural compliance and absence of arbitrariness.Accordingly, the writ petition challenging the reconstituted Committee's actions was dismissed for lack of merit, and all interlocutory applications were disposed of without costs.