https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173113 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. en-us Thu, 26 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Sep 2015 12:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173113 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. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 26 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173113