UNION OF INDIA & ANR. versus PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA ETC.

Citation: [2011] 13 S.C.R. 196 · Decided: 17-11-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 196 
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 
v. 
PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA ETC. 
(Civil Appeal Nod. 6567-6569 of 2010) 
NOVEMBER 17, 2011 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.] 
INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 
C 
(RECRUITMENT AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) 
RULES, 1963: 
r. 4 - Appointment of Members of Income-Tax Appellate 
Tribunal -Appointments of 16 candidates placed in the main 
select list approved by Appointments Committee - It further 
D giving direction that appointment of the Members in future 
would be taken up only after the recruitment rules of Income 
Tax Appellate Tribunal were amended - Candidates placed 
in· the wait list claiming appointment -
Held: Until the 
Appointments Committee approved the list of wait-listed 
E candidates, such candidates are not persons selected for 
appointment - The Appointments Committee in its meetings 
held on 26.04.2006 and 31.08.2007 had taken a view that any 
further appointment after the 16 selected candidates can be 
made after the amendment of the Rules -
The Central 
F Government is both the rule making authority as well as the 
appointing authority of any Member of the Income Tax 
Appellate Tribunal under the Income Tax Act, 1961 -
Therefore, if the Central Government has taken a decision 
through the Appointments Committee of the Union Cabinet 
to undertake appointments in future after amendment of the 
G Rules, it cannot be held that the reason given by the Central 
Government in not making any further appointments because 
of the proposed amendments to the Rules was not a justifiable 
or proper reason. 
H 
196 
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA 197 
ETC. 
Pursuant to the advertisement dated 22.01.2005 for A 
the posts of Judicial Member and Accountant Member of 
the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the Selection Board 
in its recommendations placed 18 candidates in the main 
select list. Since 2 candidates selected for the post of 
Accountant Member were not cleared by the Vigilance 
B 
Department, the list of 16 remaining candidates was, on 
26.04.2006, placed before the Appointments Committee 
of the Union Cabinet, which approved the appointment 
of all the 16 candidates, but directed the Law Ministry to 
amend the Recruitment Rules so as to provide for c 
appointment of the members of the Income Tax Appellate 
Tribunal for a period of two years. In 2007, a writ petition 
was filed before the Madras High Court for a mandamus 
to give effect to the selection list with regard to the posts 
of Judicial and Accountant Members in the Income Tax 
0 
Appellate Tribunal pursuant to the advertisement dated 
22.01.2005. The High Court, by order dated 24.04.2007, 
directed the appellants to place the matter before the 
Appointments Committee and to give effect to the 
Selection List as approved by the Selection Board, in the 
E 
"light of the decisions in R. S. Mittal's case1 and A.P. 
AgganNal's case2• The special leave petition was dismissed 
by the Supreme Court with a direction to the Union of 
India to complete the formalities and to give effect to the 
Selection List. The Appointments Committee, in its 
decision taken on 31.08.2007, approved the names of all 
F 
the 16 selected candidates and appointed them till the 
date of retirement on attaining the age of 62 years. The 
Appointments Committee also decided that the 
appointment of Members of the Income Tax Appellate 
Tribunal in future would be taken up orily after the G 
Recruitment Rules were amended. Consequently, orders 
1. 
R.S. Mittal v. Union of India 1995 (2) SCR 1127. 
2. 
A.P. Aggarwal v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Another, 1999 (4) Suppl. SCR 
443. 
H 
198 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A for appointment to all the 16 candidates were issued. 
Three candidates placed in the wait list filed Original 
Applications which came to be decided by the Principal 
Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal. It directed 
the Union of India to consider the three wait-listed 
B · candidates for filling up the advertised vacancies existing 
in the posts of Judicial Member and Accountant Member 
in the unreserved category. The Union of India 
challenged the said order before the Delhi High Court 
contending that the vacancies in the post of Judicial 
c Member and Accountant Member could be filled up only 
after the Recruitment Rules were amended as decided by 
the Appointments Committee. The High Court dismissed 
the writ petition and directed the Union of India to process 
the case fo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.