Back
K. S. HEGDE, M. HIDAYATULLAH, J. M. SHELAT, A. N. GROVER, V. BHARGAVA
A. K. Kraipak – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
What is the distinction between administrative power and quasi-judicial power? What are the principles of natural justice and to what extent do they apply to administrative proceedings? What constitutes reasonable likelihood of bias in a selection process?
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
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
