SC Upholds Selection Committee’s Authority to Re-interview GSTAT Candidates, Dismissing Challenge.
Issue
Does a Search-cum-Selection Committee (SCSC) for appointments to the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) have the legal authority to reconstitute itself and restart the interview process de novo (from the beginning) after it has already shortlisted candidates?
Facts
- A candidate, Pranaya Kishore Harichandan, was shortlisted for the position of Judicial Member of the GSTAT.
- The Search-cum-Selection Committee (SCSC) decided to scrap the ongoing process and re-initiate fresh interviews after reconstituting itself.
- This decision was reportedly influenced by confidential Intelligence Bureau (IB) inputs concerning the suitability of certain candidates.
- The petitioner challenged this action in the Orissa High Court, arguing the SCSC had no authority to restart the process once shortlisting was done.
- The High Court ruled in favor of the SCSC, stating it had the discretion to recommence the selection process. The petitioner then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Decision
- The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the candidate.
- It found no valid grounds to interfere with the Orissa High Court’s decision.
- The Court affirmed that the SCSC acted within its legal competence and authority when it decided to re-initiate the selection procedure.
Key Takeaways
- Broad Authority of Selection Committees: This ruling confirms that a high-level body like the SCSC possesses significant procedural flexibility and the authority to restart a selection process to ensure due diligence and select the most suitable candidates.
- Suitability is Paramount: The decision to reconsider was based on sensitive suitability inputs, highlighting that the selection process is not just a mechanical exercise but a comprehensive evaluation.
- No Vested Right: Being shortlisted for an interview does not grant a candidate a vested right to have the selection process completed. The selecting body can alter the procedure if justified.
- Judicial Restraint: The Supreme Court showed deference to the administrative wisdom of the SCSC, interfering only if the action was statutorily barred or clearly arbitrary, which was not the case here.