SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J.I., J.M. SHELAT, V. BHARGAVA, K.S. HEGDE AND A.N. GROVER, JJ.
A. K. Kraipak and others, Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents.
Writ Petns. Nos. 173 to 175 of 1967.
Advocates appeared
Mr. A. K. Sen, Senior Advocate (Mr. E. C. Agrawala, Advocate, with him), for Petitioners (In W. P. No. 173 of 1967); M/s. Frank Authony, E. C. Agrawala and A. T. M. Sampat, Advocates, for Petitioners (In W. P. No. 174 of 1967); Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Senior Advocate (M/s. E. C. Agrawala, A.T.M. Sampat, S. R. Agarwala and Champat Rai, Advocates with him), for Petitioners (In W. P. No.175 of 1967); Mr. Niren De, Attorney-General for India and Mr. N. S. Bindra, Senior Advocate (Mr. R. N. Sachthey, Advocate, with them), for Respondents Nos. 1 to 6 (In all the petitions); Mr. H. R. Gokhale Senior Advocate (Mr. Harbans Singh, Advocate with him), for Respondents Nos. 7 and 26 (In all the Petitions).
-held, dividing line between the two is quite thin and gradually being obliterated. Natural justice principle apply also to exercise of administrative power.
-see decision in A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 150=(1969) 1 S.C.A.605=(1970) I SCJ 381=(1970) I S.C.R. 457.
Key Points: - The dividing line between administrative and quasi-judicial power is thin and being gradually obliterated, with principles of natural justice applying to administrative power (!) . - The principles of natural justice aim to secure justice and prevent miscarriage of justice, and they supplement rather than supplant the law (!) . - A person should not be a judge in their own cause (Nemo debet esse judex propria causa) (!) . - The rules of natural justice are not embodied and their applicability depends on the facts and circumstances of each case (!) . - A mere suspicion of bias is not sufficient; there must be a reasonable likelihood of bias, considering human probabilities and ordinary course of human conduct (!) . - The participation of Naqishbund, who was also a candidate for selection, in the deliberations of the selection board, particularly when considering his rivals, vitiated the selection process (!) . - Even if a selection board is recommendatory, if its decision is vitiated, the final recommendations made by higher authorities (like the UPSC) can also be vitiated (!) . - The selection of officers for both senior and junior scales was made from the same pool, making it impossible to separate the two sets of selections when the process was flawed (!) . - The impugned selections were struck down due to the contravention of the principles of natural justice (!) (!) . - The court allowed the petitions and set aside the impugned selections (!) (!) .
Judgment
HEGDE, J.:- These petitions are brought by some of the Gazetted Officers serving in the forest department of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Some of them are serving as Conservators of Forests, some as Divisional Forest Officers and others as Assistant Conservators of Forests. All of them feel aggrieved by the selections made from among the officers serving in the forest department of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to the Indian Forest Service, a service constituted in 1966 under Section 3 (1) of the All India Service Act, 1951 and the rules framed thereunder. Hence they have moved this Court to quash Notification No. 3/24/66-A-15(IV), dated the 29th July 1967 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, as according to them the selections notified in the said notification are violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and on the further ground that the selections in question are vitiated by the contravention of the principles of natural justice. They are also challenging the vires of Section 3 of the All India Services Act, Rule 4 of the rules framed under that Act and Regulation 5 of the Indian Forest Service (Initial Recruitment) Regulations 1966, framed under the aforementioned Rule 4.
2. Section 2 (A) of the All India Services Act, 1951 authorises the Central Government to constitute three new All India Services including the Indian Forest Services. Section 3 provides that the Central Government shall after consulting the Government of the State concerned including that of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to make rules for the regulation of recruitment and the conditions of service of persons appointed to those All India Services. Sub-section (2) of Section 2 prescribes that all rules made under that section "shall be laid for not less than fourteen days before Parliament as soon as possible after they are made, and shall be subject to such modifications, whether by way of repeal or amendment, as Parliament may make on a motion made during the session in which they are so laid".
3. In pursuance of the power given under Section 3, rules for recruitment to the Indian Forest Service were made in 1966-Indian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1966. The only rule relevant for our present purpose is Rule 4 (1) which reads:
"As soon as may be after the commencement of these rules, the Central Government may recruit to the service any person from amongst the members of the State Forest Service adjudged suitable in accordance with such Regulations as the Central Government may make in consultation with the State Governments and the Commission".
4. The Commission referred to in the above rule is the Union Public Service Commission. The Proviso to that sub-rule is not relevant for our present purpose. We may next come to the Regulations framed under Rule 4 (1). Those Regulations are known as the Indian Forest Service (Initial Recruitment) Regulations, 1966. They are deemed to have come into force on July 1, 1966. Regulation 2 defines certain expressions, Regulation 3 provides for the constitution of a special selection board. It says that for the purpose of making selection to any State cadre, the Central Government shall constitute a special selection board consisting of the Chairman of the Union Public Service Commission or his nominee, the Inspector General of Forests of the Government of India, an officer of the Government of India not below the rank of Joint Secretary, the Chief Secretary to the State Government concerned or the Secretary of that Government dealing with the forests and the Chief Conservator of Forests of the State Government concerned. Regulation 4 prescribes the conditions of eligibility. That Regulation contemplates the formation of a service in the senior scale and a service in the junior scale. Regulation 5 is important for our present purpose. It deals with the preparation of the list of suitable candidates. It reads:
"(1) The Board shall prepare, in the order of preference, a li
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.