Orissa HC Questions Selective Personal Interaction in GSTAT Judicial Member Selection; Notice Issued

Pranaya Kishore Harichandan Vs Union of India and Others (Orissa High Court)

Orissa High Court has initiated proceedings to examine the selection procedure for Judicial Members of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), raising concerns over the alleged selective conduct of further personal interactions by the Search-cum-Selection Committee. The court has issued notice to the Union of India and other respondents, seeking clarification on the procedure.

The matter came before the High Court through a writ petition filed by Pranaya Kishore Harichandan, who challenged the methodology adopted by the Search-cum-Selection Committee in evaluating and recommending candidates for the GSTAT Judicial Member posts.

According to the petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Susanta Kumar Dash, the petitioner, a prospective candidate, had applied for the post following a press release dated February 15, 2024. The Search-cum-Selection Committee shortlisted his name and called him for a personal interaction, which he attended along with other candidates.

However, the petitioner subsequently learned that the Search-cum-Selection Committee had issued fresh intimations to only a select few candidates from the previously shortlisted pool, inviting them for a “further personal interaction” scheduled for May 31, 2025.

Mr. Dash argued that sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (Appointment and Conditions of Service of President and Members) Rules, 2023 (“the Rules”), does not provide for such a classification of shortlisted candidates or for conducting additional personal interactions selectively. He highlighted the wording of sub-rule (4), which states:

“The Committee shall make its recommendations based on the overall assessment of eligible candidates including assessment through the personal interaction after taking into account the suitability, record of past performance, integrity as well as adjudicating and experience keeping in view the requirements of the Tribunal and shall recommend a panel of two names for every post for which selection is being done…”

The petitioner’s counsel contended that once the initial personal interaction and overall assessment of all eligible shortlisted candidates had taken place, the Committee’s role was limited to making recommendations for final selection. He asserted that the Committee lacked the authority to further classify candidates and conduct additional, selective personal interactions, ignoring others who had already undergone the initial process. The petitioner, despite having appeared for the first personal interaction, was not called for the subsequent one, which he described as a deviation from Rule 3(4) of the Rules.

Representing the Union of India and other opposite parties, Mr. Parhi, learned DSGI, along with Mr. D. Gochhayat, learned CGC, accepted notice. Mr. Parhi briefly referred to clause 4 of Form-1 appended to the Rules, which deals with the selection procedure, and Rule 19 of the Rules, pertaining to ‘Interpretation.’ He suggested that the Search-cum-Selection Committee might possess the power for further personal interactions to recommend names as per Rule 3(4) of the Rules. However, he requested an adjournment to obtain detailed instructions on the matter, specifically asking for clarification on why only some shortlisted candidates were called for further interaction.

Judicial Precedents: While the current judgment does not cite specific judicial precedents, the arguments presented and the court’s prima facie observation touch upon well-established principles of administrative law and public employment. Indian courts have consistently emphasized transparency, fairness, and non-arbitrariness in selection processes for public offices. The principle of “equal opportunity” enshrined in the Constitution often guides judicial scrutiny of recruitment procedures. Any action by a selection committee that appears to create an unequal playing field or introduces an arbitrary classification of candidates after an initial common assessment would typically be subject to judicial review. Cases related to service law and administrative discretion often refer to the need for clear, pre-determined criteria and procedures, and deviations from these can be challenged on grounds of arbitrariness. The court’s decision to issue notice and put an interim stay on the finalization of selections indicates a prima facie concern regarding the transparency and fairness of the process, aligning with these broader judicial principles.

Given the gravity of the allegations and the need for clarity, the High Court determined that the matter warranted consideration. It issued notice to the respondents and directed Mr. Parhi to serve three extra copies of the brief to facilitate the obtaining of instructions.

As an interim measure, recognizing a prima facie case in favor of the petitioner, the court directed that while the selection process for GSTAT Judicial Members may continue, “no final decision shall be taken in the matter till the next date.” The case is scheduled to be heard again on June 20, 2025, with instructions expected to be obtained by then. This interim order underscores the court’s intent to ensure the integrity and fairness of the selection process for these crucial judicial appointments.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ORISSA HIGH COURT

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Appearance memo of Mr. Susanta Kumar Dash, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner is filed in Court, which is taken on record.

3. The petitioner in this writ application seeks to assail the procedure adopted by the Search-cum-Selection Committee in evaluating and recommending the name of the candidates for the post of Judicial Member of Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal.

4. Mr. Dash, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that pursuant to a Press release dated 15.02.2024 (Annexure-3) for appointment of Judicial Member in the GST Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner submitted his candidature. The Search-cum-Selection Committee shortlisted his name and intimated him to appear before the said Committee for personal interaction. The petitioner pursuant to the said intimation under Annexures-6 and 7 appeared before the Search-cum-Selection Committee along with other candidates. When the matter stood thus and the petitioner was expecting his name to be recommended, he came to know that Search-cum-Selection Committee issued fresh intimation to few candidates from the list of shortlisted candidates, who were called for personal interaction earlier, to appear before the said Committee for further personal interaction, which is scheduled to be held on 31^st May, 2025.

It is submitted that sub-rule (4) of Rule-3 of Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (Appointment and Conditions of Service of President and Members) Rules, 2023 (for brevity ‘the Rules’), does not provide to make a classification of shortlisted candidates and ask them to appear for further personal interaction;

Sub-rule(4) of Rule-3 prescribes as under:

“3. Selection for posts of President and Members –

xxx xxx xxx

(4) The Committee shall make its recommendations based on the overall assessment of eligible candidates including assessment through the personal interaction after taking into account the suitability, record of past performance, integrity as well as adjudicating and experience keeping in view the requirements of the Tribunal and shall recommend a panel of two names for every post for which selection is being done in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (6) of section 110 of the Act.”

(emphasis supplied)

5. He, therefore, submits that once personal interaction and overall assessment of the eligible shortlisted candidates has taken place, the Search-cum-Selection Committee can only make recommendation of names for final selection and it does not have any power to make further classification of candidates and make further personal interaction with some of the shortlisted candidates ignoring others. It is his submission that although the petitioner has appeared before the Search-cum- Selection Committee pursuant to the intimation for personal interaction, he was not called to the subsequent personal interaction scheduled to be held on 31^st May, 2025 which is in deviation of sub-rule(4) of rule-3 of the Rules. He therefore, prays for intervention of this Court in the matter.

6. Mr. Parhi, learned DSGI along with Mr. D. Gochhayat, learned CGC files appearance memo on behalf of the opposite parties-Union of India, which is taken on record.

7. Mr. Parhi, learned DSGI although brings notice of this Court to clause-4 of Form-1 appended to the Rules, but prays for an adjournment to take detail instruction in the matter. He drew attention of this Court to clause-4 which deals with procedure for selection vis-à-vis Rule-19 of the Rules which deals with ‘Interpretation’. It is his submission that the Search-cum-Selection Committee has the power for further personal interaction to recommend names as per rule-3(4) of the Rules.

He further submits that a short date may be fixed so that instruction would be obtained before taking up final decision in the matter of selection of Judicial Member of the GST Appellate Tribunal. He further seeks leave of this Court to take instruction as to how some of shortlisted candidates have been called for further personal interaction as alleged by the petitioner.

7. In view of the above, we feel that the matter requires consideration. Hence issue notice.

8. Since Mr. Parhi, learned DSGI accepts notice on behalf of opposite parties, three extra copies of the brief shall be served on him within three days hence to enable him to take instruction in the matter.

9. As prayed for, put up on 20^th June, 2025. Instructions, if any, shall be obtained in the meantime positively.

I.A. No.9152 of 2025

10. Issue notice as above.

11. Since finding a prima-facie case in favour of the petitioner, we have issued notice in the writ petition, we feel it proper to make an interim arrangement. Hence, as a purely interim measure, we direct that the selection of Judicial Member of the GST Appellate Tribunal may continue but no final decision shall be taken in the matter till the next date.