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

“…….Mere offering the candidature in a public employment does not create indefeasible or inchoate right into the appointment. Even a person, whose name is included in the select list, cannot claim a vested right on appointment. It is within the prerogative of the Committee or the Appointing Authorities to appoint a person to a post subject to the fulfillment of the various criteria envisaged in 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 the Members of the Search-cum-Selection Committee constituted under the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (Appointment and Conditions of Services of President and Members) Rules, is likely to demit Office on and from 30th June, 2025.

The petitioner offered his candidature pursuant to the advertisement issued by the concerned authority for the appointment of the Member in the Central Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (“GSTAT”) to be constituted under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

The Search-cum-Selection Committee was constituted as per provisions of Section 110(4)(b) of the CGST Act consisting of five members which includes the Chairman who would be the Judge of the Supreme Court of India.

The Committee shortlisted the candidates for personal interaction and the petitioner was included as one of the candidates and in fact, appeared for personal interaction.

The said Committee was reconstituted on 24th April, 2025 as the Chairperson of the earlier constituted Committee showed his inability to continue in such capacity. The reconstituted Committee suggests scrutinized the applications upon obtaining the feedback or the opinion from the Intelligence Bureau and selected the candidates for personal interaction. The petitioner was excluded from the second round of interview.

The petitioner argued that the reconstituted Committee cannot adopt a de novo exercise, but should continue from the stage at which the said recruitment process was left by the earlier Committee.

The Court held that “the provisions contained in Rule 3 does not in express terms postulate the role of reconstituted Committee or the procedures to be adopted by it in the event one or more Members of the earlier Committee signify their intention to demit the office. The expression “as it may deem fit” has to be construed in a more pragmatic manner and to be ascribed the meaning in a reasonable way. Such expression cannot put deterrence to the action to be taken by the statutory Committee nor should the restrictive interpretation be assigned to whittle down the object of constituting the Committee.”

As per the bench, the suitability and integrity is the hallmark in any appointment in a Court or a Tribunal and, therefore, a synergy is required to be created amongst various clauses and sub-rules in Rule 3 of the said Rules, 2023. The Committee comprises of persons holding a high degree of office in Constitutional field; therefore, their actions have to be tested on the anvil of keeping the same in the mind.

The bench concluded that “the Authority has to act within the precincts of the provisions of the law and in the event, there is no express fetter put in the Authority if the reconstituted Searchcum-Selection Committee decided to start the process de novo, we do not find any statutory obstacles having put in this regard.”

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

Case Title: Pranaya Kishore Harichandan v. Union of India

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

Counsel for Petitioner: Susanta Kumar Dash

Counsel for Respondent: N. Venkatraman

Click Here To Read/Download The Order