Orissa HC Questions Selective Re-Interview Process in GSTAT Judicial Member Selection, Issues Notice to Centre [Read Order]

In a recent hearing, the Orissa High Court issued notice to the Union of India on a writ petition challenging the selection process for appointing Judicial Members to the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT). The petitioner questioned the legality of conducting a second round of personal interaction for a select group of candidates after all shortlisted applicants had already been interviewed once.

Pranaya Kishore Harichandan, the petitioner, had applied for the post in response to a press release issued on 15.02.2024. He was shortlisted and attended a personal interaction as part of the selection process. However, he later discovered that the Search-cum-Selection Committee had scheduled another round of interaction on 31.05.2025 for only some candidates, excluding him.

Step by Step Handbook for Filing GST Appeals, Click Here

The petitioner’s counsel argued that this second round was not supported by the rules and violated the principle of fairness. He relied on Rule 3(4) of the GSTAT (Appointment and Conditions of Service of President and Members) Rules, 2023, which provides for an overall assessment of candidates, including a personal interaction, but does not mention any second or selective round. They submitted that once all shortlisted candidates had participated in the interaction, the process should not be repeated only for a few, and his exclusion was arbitrary.

The Deputy Solicitor General of India, appearing for the Union of India, argued that the selection committee may have some discretion under the rules and requested time to seek instructions and file a detailed response. He pointed to other provisions in the rules that may be relevant for interpreting the committee’s powers.

A single bench of Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra observed that the petitioner had raised a serious concern about the fairness of the selection process. The court remarked that there was a prima facie issue as Rule 3(4) did not appear to permit a second round of interviews for only a few candidates. The court added that the process must be conducted in a fair and transparent manner, giving equal opportunity to all shortlisted applicants.

Complete Ready to Use PDFs of 200+ Agreements Click here

The court directed the Union of India and other respondents to file their responses and explain the basis for the second round of personal interaction. The court allowed the selection process to continue, but made it clear that no final appointments should be made until the matter is heard again.

The case has been listed for further hearing on 20.06.2025 and again adjourned on 26.06.2025. The interim direction ensures that the challenge to the process is considered before any final selection is made.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates