2011 Supreme(SC) 1084

2011 (8) Supreme 33
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Sathasivam and A. K. Patnaik, JJ
Union of India & Anr. — Appellants
versus
Pradip Kumar Kedia Etc. — Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 6567-6569 of 2010
Decided on : 17-11-2011

IMPORTANT POINTS
(a) 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 for appointment. The appointing authority cannot ignore the select-panel or decline to make the appointment on its whims and when there is a vacancy which can be offered to him, keeping in view his merit position, then, ordinarily, there is no justification to ignore him for appointment. There has to be a justifiable reason to decline to appoint a person who is on the select-panel.
(b) Until the Appointments Committee approved the list of wait-listed candidates, such wait-listed candidates are not persons selected for appointment

Headnote:(a) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules 1963 ¯ Rule 4 ¯ Recruitment of Judicial and Account Members of Income Tax Tribunal ¯ The Government of India, Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs, invited applications for 9 vacancies in the post of Judicial Member and 13 vacancies in post of Accountant member in Income Tax Tribunal ¯ Advertisement stated that the vacancies may increase or decrease due to circumstances that may occur upto 3.12.2005 ¯ One more vacancy occurred in the post of Accountant Member ¯ Against 9 vacancies in the post of Judicial Member and 14 vacancies in the post of Accountant Member the Selection Board in its recommendation 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 in the wait list/waiting list for the post of Judicial Member and 2 candidates in the wait list/waiting list for the post of Accountant Member ¯ 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 ¯ 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 ¯ On the writ petition filed by Revenue Bar Association, the High Court directed the appellants to give effect to the Selection List approved by the Selection Board ¯ Special Leave Petition filed by the appellant before the Supreme Court was dismissed ¯ The appointment committee approved the names of all 16 selected candidates and appointed them till the date of retirement on attaining the age of 62 years or until further orders in its decision taken on 31.08.2007 ¯ In the decision taken on 31.08.2007, the Appointments Committee also decided that the appointment of members of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in future will be taken up only after the recruitment rules of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal are amended ¯ One person of the wait list for the post of Judicial member and two persons of the wait list of Accountant member filed original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and prayed for directions for their appointment ¯ CAT allowed the three Original Applications and directed 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 ¯ In writ petition filed by the appellant, the High Court did not accept the explanation given by the Union of India in not making appointments and dismissed the writ petition and further directed the Union of India to process the case for the appointment of the 3 wait-listed candidates against the respective vacancies and thereafter place the matter before the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet for further directions ¯ Hence this appeal ¯ The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and dismissed all the original applications.

        (b) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules 1963 ¯ Rule 4(3) ¯ Wait list ¯ 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 approve the list of wait-listed candidates, such wait-listed candidates are not persons selected for appointment ¯ Appointments Committee in its meetings had taken a view that any further appointment after the 16 selected candidates can be made after the amendment of the Rules ¯ The decision of the Central Government through the Appointment’s Committee of the Union Cabinet to undertake appointments in future after the amendment of the Rules cannot be said to be unjustified or proper ¯ If the Appointments Committee has taken a view that any further appointments will be considered only after the rules are amended, the Court should not compel the Central Government to make the appointments from the wait-listed candidates recommended by the Selection Board by a writ of mandamus.

       Facts of the case

        The Government of India, Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs, invited applications for 9 vacancies in the post of Judicial Member and 13 vacancies in post of Accountant member in Income Tax Tribunal. Advertisement stated that the vacancies may increase or decrease due to circumstances that may occur upto 3.12.2005. As one vacancy occurred in the post of Accountant Member. Against 9 vacancies in the post of Judicial Member and 14 vacancies in the post of Accountant Member the Section Board in its recommendation 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. 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. On the writ petition filed by Revenue Bar Association, the High Court directed the appellants to give effect to the Selection List approved by the Selection Board ¯ Special Leave Petition filed by the appellant before the Supreme Court was dismissed. The Appointments Committee approved the names of all 16 selected candidates and appointed them till the date of retirement on attaining the age of 62 years or until further orders in its decision taken on 31.08.2007. In the decision taken on 31.08.2007, the Appointments Committee also decided that the appointment of members of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in future will be taken up only after the recruitment rules of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal are amended ¯ One person of the wait list for the post of Judicial member and two persons of the wait list of Accountant member filed original application before the CAT and prayed for directions for their appointment. CAT allowed the three Original Applications and directed 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. In writ petition filed by the appellant, the High Court did not accept the explanation given by the Union of India in not making appointments and dismissed the writ petition and further directed the Union of India to process the case for the appointment of the 3 wait-listed candidates against the respective vacancies and thereafter place the matter before the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet for further directions. Hence this appeal. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and dismissed all the original applications.

       Findings

        Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules 1963 ¯ Rule 4(3) ¯ Wait list ¯ 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 31.08.2007 had taken a view that any further appointment after the 16 selected candidates can be made after the amendment of the Rules ¯ The decision of the Central Government though the Appointment’s Committee of the Union Cabinet to undertake appointments in future after the amendment of the Rules cannot be said to be unjustified or proper ¯ If the Appointments Committee has taken a view that any further appointments will be considered only after the rules are amended, the Court should not compel the Central Government to make the appointments from the wait-listed candidates recommended by the Selection Board by a writ of mandamus.