JUDGMENT

FAZAL ALI. J.:— These appeals by special leave are directed against the Judgment of the division bench of the Gujarat High Court dated 18th March, 1977 by which writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1 was allowed and the impugned selection made by the Selection Board was quashed as also the notification dated January 7, 1972.

2. The facts have been detailed in the judgment of the High Court and it is not necessary to repeat the same all over again. Suffice it to say that Respondent No. 1 was selected for Superior Forest Service of the Government of Saurashtra in the year 1951. On 9-4-1958, he was appointed as Assistant Conservator of Forests, Class III. Sometimes in August, 1959, the Respondent No. 1 was appointed as Deputy Conservator of Forests consequent upon the merger of Saurashra with Greater Bombay. On 1st May, 1960 the State of Gujarat was created and the Respondent No. 1 was allotted to the Gujarat Cadre and appointed as Deputy Conservator of Forest. Sometimes after in the year 1966. there was amendment in the All India Service Act by which a new service called the Indian Forests service was established and Indian Forests Service Rules were made in 1966. In the instant case, we are only concerned with the interpretation of the Regulation 5 of the Indian Forest Service (Initial Recruitment) Regulation of 1966. The respondent No. 1 was one of the candidates to be considered for initial recruitment to the Indian Forest Service from the State Cadre. It appears that the Selection Board did not recommend the selection of the respondent No. 1 and other respondents were selected. Respondent No. 1, therefore, filed writ petition in the High Court of Gujarat for quashing the selection made by the Selection Board.

3. The sole point that was urged before the High Court was that the mandatory provisions of Regulation 5 dated 1st Sept. 1966 as amended up to date had been violated and, therefore, the selection made by the Board was illegal. The High Court accepted the plea taken by the respondent No. 1 and allowed the writ petition as indicated above. The Union of India obtained special leave of this Court and hence this appeal before us.

4. The short point which falls for determination in this case is as to whether or not the provisions of the Regulation 5 (2) (b) of the Indian Forests Service (Initial Recruitment) Regulations, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations) are mandatory in character. The High Court held that Regulation 5 (2) (b) is mandatory and as the Selection Board did not give reasons as enjoined by this provision, the selection made by the Board was illegal. Appearing in support of the appeal, Mr. Bhatt submitted in the first place that the Regulation does not contain any mandatory requirement for giving reasons by the Board when it submits its recommendations to the Commission. Secondly, it was submitted that the Selection Board on perusal of the confidential rolls of the respondent. No. 1 was satisfied that he was not a suitable person to be recruited to the service and he was, therefore, ignored. The Board, therefore, did not commit any error of law in not selecting respondent No 1. Reliance has been placed by the counsel for the appellant on an unreported decision of the Kerala High Court which has been annexed to the paper book. In our opinion, the interpretation of Regulation 5 (2) (b) does not present any difficulty at all. Relevant portion of Regulation 5 may be extracted thus:-

5. Preparation of list of suitable officers:-

1. The Board shall prepare, in the order of preference, a list of such officers of State Forest Service who satisfy the conditions specified in Regulation 4 and who are adjudged by the Board suitable for appointment to posts in the senior and junior scales of service.

2. The list prepared in accordance with sub-regulation (1) shall then be referred to the Commission for advice, by the Central Government along with-

(a) the records of all officers of State Forest Service in