This is an interesting question, but a difficult one. Some of your follow up questions are quite easy to respond to, so let's dispose of those first.
In my opinion, there is absolutely no value in using point of view as a criterion for judging a book. Each point of view, first, second, and third, and the subdivisions, omniscient or not, can have literary merit. Every writer is entitled to decide which is best to tell his or her story, and limiting a prize to a particular point of view is likely to have a chilling effect on anyone's writing.
Originality is a must in any context. A work that is not original is plagiarized, in other words, stolen. Why should we ever reward an illegal and unethical work?
Now, assuming that a judgement on a "best book" is taking place with a pool of candidates, I do not see how any literary criteria can be a constant. What happens if none of the books meet the literary criteria? Is no prize awarded? What happens if all of the books meet the literary criteria? Do they all win?
If one uses the "message" critierion, the judges are likely to disagree on what the message is in each book. Most of us have participated in a discussion of books, in a classroom, among friends, or in a book group, only to find that each of us sees something different in a particular book. This is because each of us is bringing a different combination of experiences to the book. The "truth" of a book occurs as we, as individuals, make meaning of what the writer has put down on the page. So the "message" criterion is a problem.
Many of us who "judge" literature believe that time can be the best criterion for greatness. A bestseller today might find itself on the remaindered table and fade away five years from now. Or, it might find itself in the literary canon, as for example, in the case of The Great Gatsby. Many award recipients have faded away, while others will continue to delight us.
Someone who is called upon to judge a group of books might look at the universality of the work as one standard, but even that can be a difficult standard to apply, since some will see universality in a work about a particular time and place, while others will see the work as limited to its time and place.
Judging books is a subjective and messy endeavor, and while it is quite easy to say what should be eliminated, for example, unoriginal works, it seems impossible to say what should be included as criteria.
Writing and reading are to a large degree quite subjective, and so are the judgements made about them. Most of the time, book prizes are based upon votes, with a panel of judges who apply whatever individual criteria they like upon the candidates.