Pranaya Kishore Harichandan Vs Union of India (Orissa High Court)
Reconstitution of GSTAT: Selection Committee can Undertake de novo Process in Absence of Statutory Bar – Orissa High Court
Summary: The Orissa High Court, in the case of Pranaya Kishore Harichandan v. Union of India, ruled that a reconstituted Search-cum-Selection Committee for the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) can initiate a fresh (de novo) selection process. The petitioner, Pranaya Kishore Harichandan, had applied for a GSTAT Member position and was shortlisted by the original committee. However, after the committee was reconstituted due to the former Chairman’s withdrawal, the new committee began the scrutiny process again, excluding the petitioner from the personal interaction shortlist. The petitioner challenged this fresh process, arguing that the reconstituted committee should have continued from where the previous one left off. The Court examined Rule 3 of the GSTAT Appointment Rules, 2023, which outlines the selection mechanism but does not explicitly address the procedure for a reconstituted committee. The High Court observed that there was no statutory prohibition preventing a reconstituted committee from starting anew. It emphasized that the phrase “as it may deem fit” in Rule 3 grants the committee broad discretion in determining its procedure. The Court also noted that the reconstituted committee sought inputs from the Intelligence Bureau (IB) for its fresh scrutiny, aligning with the principle that constitutional authorities can evaluate suitability based on such inputs, and such decisions are generally not subject to judicial review unless arbitrary. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. Kali Dass Batish, the Orissa High Court reinforced that the evaluation of integrity and suitability by constitutional authorities, often based on IB reports, is binding. The Court found no statutory impediment to the reconstituted committee’s decision to conduct a de novo shortlisting process, concluding that its actions were legally sustainable and not beyond the scope of Rule 3 of the Rules, 2023. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
