TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (11) TMI 49
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inst the 9 vacancies in the post of Judicial Member and 14 vacancies in the post of Accountant Member, the Selection Board in its recommendations placed 18 candidates in the main select list, 7 candidates for the post of Judicial Member and 11 candidates for the post of Accountant' Member. The Selection Board in its recommendations also placed 2 candidates, namely, Nandan Kumar Jha and B. Krishna Mohan in the wait list for the post of Judicial Member and 2 candidates, namely, P.K. Kedia and Inturi Rama Rao in the wait list for the post of Accountant Member. Out of the 18 selected candidates, 2 candidates selected for the post of Accountant Member were not cleared by the Vigilance Department and the list of 16 remaining candidates was placed before the Appointments Committee of the Union Cabinet on 26.04.2006. The Appointments Committee approved the appointment of all the 16 candidates but directed the Law Ministry to amend the recruitment rules so as to provide for appointment of the members of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for a period of two years. 3. In 2007, the Revenue Bar Association filed Writ Petition No. 8288 of 2007 in the Madras High Court for a mandamus to give eff....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....made until the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules 1963 ( for short 'the Rules') are amended. The three Original Applications were transferred to the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal and on 31.07.2008, the Principal Bench passed a common order allowing the three Original Applications and directing the Union of India to consider the three wait-listed candidates for filling up the advertised vacancies existing in the posts of Judicial Member and Accountant Member in the unreserved category within eight weeks 5. The Union of India challenged the common order of the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal before the Delhi High Court contending that the vacancies in the post of Judicial Member and Accountant Member can be filled up only after the recruitment rules of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal are amended as decided by the Appointments Committee. In the impugned judgment, the High Court held that the recruitment rules of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had already been amended and an amendment had been inserted in Rule 4(a) of the recruitment rules, but there was nothing in the amendment which disqual....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....some unexpected vacancies and in these unexpected vacancies B. Krishna Mohan who was placed in the wait list of the candidates recommended for appointment as Judicial Member could not be appointed because of the decision of the Appointments Committee not to make any further appointment until the amendment of the Rules. He submitted that similarly there were 5 vacancies of Accountant Members in the general quota and 5 candidates were selected but one selected candidate declined and another selected candidate did not get vigilance clearance and Inturi Rama Rao and P.K. Kedia, who were placed in the wait list could not be appointed as the Appointments Committee had taken a view that there will be no further appointments till the rules are amended. 7. Mr. Chandhiok submitted that the High Court has held that there was nothing in the amendment inserting Rule 4(a) in the Rules which disqualifies any of the aforesaid 3 wait listed candidates, namely, B. Krishna Mohan, Inturi Rama Rao and P.K. Kedia from being appointed as the members of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and hence the amendment of the Rules was not relevant for denying appointment to the 3 wait-listed candidates as member....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en a person has been selected by the Selection Board and there is a vacancy which could be offered to him, keeping in view his merit position, then, ordinarily there is no justification to ignore him for appointment. He also relied on the decision in A.P. Aggarwal v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Another (supra) in which this Court has reiterated that it is not open to the Government to ignore the panel which has already been approved and accepted by it and resort to a fresh selection process without giving any proper reason for resorting to the same. He cited Director, SCTI for Medical Science & Technology and Another v. M. Pushkaran [(2008) 1 SCC 448] in which this Court has held that the selectee has no such legal right and the superior court in exercise of its power of judicial review would not ordinarily direct issuance of any writ, but each case must be considered on its own merits and where the Court does not find any reason for the authorities not to offer any appointment to candidate placed in the selection panel, the Court can direct appointment. He submitted that in the present case, since no good reason had been shown by the appellants for not making appointment to the vaca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Rules which is quoted hereinbelow: "4. Method of Recruitment:- (1) There shall be a Selection Board consisting of- (i) a nominee of the Minister of Law; (ii) The Secretary to the Government of India Ministry of Law (Department of Legal Affairs); (iii) The President of the Tribunal; and (iv) Such other persons, if any, not exceeding two, as the Minister of Law may appoint. (2) The nominee of the Minister of Law shall be the Chairman of the Selection Board. (3) The Selection Board shall recommend persons for appointment as members from amongst the persons on the list of candidates prepared by t he Ministry of Law after inviting applications therefore by advertisement or on the recommendations of the appropriate authorities. (4) The Central Government shall after taking into consideration the recommendations of the Selection Board make a list of persons selected for appointment as members." 14. Rule 4 of the Rules quoted above was considered by this Court in R.S. Mittal v. Union of India (supra) and this Court held that a person on the select panel has no vested right to be appointed to the post for which he has been selected, but he has a right to be considered....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ents Committee approved the appointment of 16 candidates found suitable for a period of 2 years and further decided that the rules be amended for making such appointment for a period of 2 years, whereas on 31.08.2007 after the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition against the order of the Madras High Court, the Appointments Committee approved the appointment of the 16 candidates for a full tenure upto 62 years as provided under Rule 11 of the Rules. Hence, the main list of the selected candidates recommended by the Selection Board has been given effect to in accordance with the directions of the Madras High Court as upheld by this Court. 17. The wait list of candidates recommended by the Selection Board, however, has not been given effect to. Under sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 of the Rules quoted above, the Central Government after taking into consideration the recommendations of the Selection Board make a list of persons selected for appointment as members. Thus, until the Appointments Committee approved the list of wait-listed candidates, such wait-listed candidates are not persons selected for appointment Appointments Committee in its meetings held on 26.04.2006 and 31.0....