Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the appointment process for the post of Member, Appellate Tribunal, Sales-tax, following an advertisement issued in November 1996. The appellant, who had the requisite qualifications, applied for the position but was not appointed despite being recommended by the Selection Committee alongside another candidate, Mr. M.L. Sahni. The Central Government appointed Sahni, who later resigned, prompting the government to issue a fresh advertisement for applications instead of appointing the appellant. The appellant filed an application with the Central Administrative Tribunal to quash the fresh advertisement and sought his appointment based on the earlier recommendation. The Tribunal dismissed his application, stating that the government was not bound to appoint him merely because his name was on the panel. The appellant then approached the High Court, which dismissed his writ petition without a detailed order. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the case, noted that the statutory provision in Section 13(4) of the Delhi Sales Tax Act imposed a duty on the government to fill vacancies promptly. The court found that the Office Memorandum issued by the Central Government was intended to facilitate timely appointments and that the government had acted arbitrarily by ignoring the select panel. The court emphasized that every state action must not be arbitrary, referencing Article 14 of the Constitution. Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, directing the government to appoint the appellant as Member, Sales-tax Appellate Tribunal, and quashed the fresh selection process as invalid.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Appointment Process - Right to be Considered - Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975, Section 13 - The court held that the government has a mandatory duty to fill vacancies as soon as practicable and cannot ignore the select panel without valid reasons. The appellant was the only other person in the panel and the rejection of his name was deemed arbitrary and unconstitutional (Paras 16-17).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant had a right to be appointed as Member, Sales-tax Appellate Tribunal despite the issuance of a fresh advertisement for applications.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, directing the respondents to appoint the appellant as Member, Sales-tax Appellate Tribunal, and quashed the fresh selection process as arbitrary and unconstitutional.
Law Points
- Mandatory duty to fill vacancies
- Right to be considered for appointment
- Arbitrariness in state action
- Validity of executive instructions
