ITAT - Selection of Vice President - Court not to interfere - Government urged to frame guidelines for selection: HC
ITAT Members are judges who decide cases involving hundreds of Crores - even thousands. Sometimes some of these Members feel aggrieved that they have been treated unjustly and unfairly in the matter of promotions. And they approach another Tribunal - the Central Administrative Tribunal - not with success often.
In this case, two Members felt that they were unfairly overlooked in the matter of promotion as Vice Presidents of the Tribunal. They were not successful before the CAT and so are before the High Court. The High Court also declined to interfere.
But the High Court made some observations.
Members of tribunals such as the ITAT perform crucial judicial functions, which can have an adverse bearing on individuals, and at times, vast commercial and fiscal ramifications. In these circumstances, the Central Government should seriously consider continuous oversight through the concerned High Courts, given that High Courts exercise appellate (and supervisory writ) jurisdiction over the orders and proceedings of ITAT and its benches. Some reporting mechanism, preferably centralized, to oversee the quality of the orders of ITAT is essential because the President of ITAT's powers over members of ITAT and Vice President are not appellate, they are administrative. Creation of this mechanism would result in adding a new and possibly crucial dimension to ensure greater scrutiny of ITAT and its orders and also provide a link in the decision making process of selection to senior judicial positions within ITAT.
The High Court also suggested that to allay any future apprehensions, it would be necessary for the Central Government, in consultation with all concerned, including the President of ITAT, to evolve some guidelines applicable for future cases. This could be in the form of some minimum information about each candidate who applies for the post of Vice President, Senior Vice President and President, in regard to the last three years or five years' performance, such as the number of orders written or delivered, each year; the units/appeals disposed of; a certain number of orders, i.e. about five or ten (may be chosen in advance by the Chairman of the Committee) to assess their quality, and personal interaction.
We bring you this Judgement today. Please see Breaking News