Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Petitioner-in-person
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Tushar Mehta, Ld. Solicitor General Mr. N.Venkataraman, A.S.G. Mr. V.C.bharathi, Adv. Mr. Mayank Pandey, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Prakash Singh Negi, Adv. Mr. Aman Mehta, Adv. Dr. N. Visakamurthy, AOR

The legal document details a complex and protracted series of events involving the petitioner, a former Indian Army officer and civil servant, who has faced multiple challenges and alleged injustices in his efforts to secure appointment as a Member of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The core issues revolve around allegations of bias, mala fide conduct, and procedural irregularities in the appointment process, including the participation of certain committee members with prior contentious relations with the petitioner.

Key points include:

1. The petitioner successfully ranked first in the evaluation process conducted by the Search-cum-Selection Committee (SCSC) for the ITAT appointment, but was not appointed due to purported adverse intelligence inputs and procedural delays (!) (!) .

2. There were multiple litigations, including orders from administrative tribunals and courts, which mandated the respondents to act in accordance with merit-based recommendations and to consider the petitioner’s case fairly (!) (!) .

3. The petitioner faced disciplinary proceedings, including a charge memorandum and suspension, which were ultimately dropped, but he was subjected to compulsory retirement shortly before his superannuation, an action later found to be unjustified by the courts (!) (!) (!) .

4. Despite court orders and judgments favoring the petitioner, the respondents delayed and obstructed the appointment process, including not implementing court judgments and creating procedural hurdles, which resulted in contempt proceedings and costs being imposed on the respondents (!) (!) (!) .

5. A significant concern raised was the participation of a committee member ("the Officer") who had prior contempt proceedings against him initiated by the petitioner. The presence of this individual on the selection committee was deemed to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias, undermining the fairness of the process (!) (!) (!) .

6. The Court emphasized the importance of natural justice principles, particularly the requirement that decision-makers act fairly and avoid situations that could give rise to a perception of bias. The Court found that the inclusion of the biased member compromised the integrity of the selection process and ordered a fresh SCSC to be convened excluding that member (!) .

7. The Court also observed that the respondents’ conduct exhibited deliberate procrastination and bad faith, creating obstacles to the petitioner’s appointment, which justified the imposition of costs (!) (!) (!) .

8. Ultimately, the Court disposed of the petition by setting aside the previous decision not to recommend the petitioner and directing that a new committee be convened within four weeks, ensuring the exclusion of the biased member, and that the outcome be communicated within two weeks thereafter (!) .

Overall, the judgment underscores the importance of fairness, transparency, and adherence to principles of natural justice in public appointments, condemning procedural irregularities and bias that undermine public confidence in the process.