Reconstituted GSTAT Selection Committee Has Power To Restart Process Afresh: Orissa High Court

“…….Mere providing the candidature in a public employment doesn’t create indefeasible or inchoate proper into the appointment. Even an individual, whose identify is included in the choose record, can not declare a vested proper on appointment. It’s throughout the prerogative of the Committee or the Appointing Authorities to nominate an individual to a submit topic to the success of the varied standards envisaged within the statutory provisions” opined the Division Bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman.

In this case, the matter was taken up on an urgency that one of many Members of the Search-cum-Choice Committee constituted beneath the Items and Providers Tax Appellate Tribunal (Appointment and Circumstances of Providers of President and Members) Guidelines, is more likely to demit Workplace on and from thirtieth June, 2025.

The petitioner provided his candidature pursuant to the commercial issued by the involved authority for the appointment of the Member within the Central Items and Providers Tax Appellate Tribunal (“GSTAT”) to be constituted beneath the Central Items and Providers Tax Act, 2017.

The Search-cum-Choice Committee was constituted as per provisions of Part 110(4)(b) of the CGST Act consisting of 5 members which incorporates the Chairman who could be the Decide of the Supreme Court docket of India.

The Committee shortlisted the candidates for private interplay and the petitioner was included as one of many candidates and in reality, appeared for private interplay.

The stated Committee was reconstituted on twenty fourth April, 2025 because the Chairperson of the earlier constituted Committee confirmed his lack of ability to proceed in such capability. The reconstituted Committee suggests scrutinized the functions upon acquiring the suggestions or the opinion from the Intelligence Bureau and chosen the candidates for private interplay. The petitioner was excluded from the second spherical of interview.

The petitioner argued that the reconstituted Committee can not undertake a de novo train, however ought to proceed from the stage at which the stated recruitment course of was left by the sooner Committee.

The Court docket held that “the provisions contained in Rule 3 doesn’t in categorical phrases postulate the position of reconstituted Committee or the procedures to be adopted by it within the occasion a number of Members of the sooner Committee signify their intention to demit the workplace. The expression “as it might deem match” must be construed in a extra pragmatic method and to be ascribed the which means in an inexpensive method. Such expression can not put deterrence to the motion to be taken by the statutory Committee nor ought to the restrictive interpretation be assigned to whittle down the thing of constituting the Committee.”

As per the bench, the suitability and integrity is the hallmark in any appointment in a Court docket or a Tribunal and, subsequently, a synergy is required to be created amongst varied clauses and sub-rules in Rule 3 of the stated Guidelines, 2023. The Committee includes of individuals holding a excessive diploma of workplace in Constitutional subject; subsequently, their actions need to be examined on the anvil of preserving the identical within the thoughts.

The bench concluded that “the Authority has to behave throughout the precincts of the provisions of the regulation and within the occasion, there isn’t a categorical fetter put within the Authority if the reconstituted Searchcum-Choice Committee determined to begin the method de novo, we don’t discover any statutory obstacles having put on this regard.”

In view of the above, the bench dismissed the petition.

Case Title: Pranaya Kishore Harichandan v. Union of India

Case Quantity: W.P.(C) No.15220 of 2025

Counsel for Petitioner: Susanta Kumar Sprint

Counsel for Respondent: N. Venkatraman

Click Here To Read/Download The Order