LexA. K. KRAIPAK & ORS. ETC. versus UNION OF. INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.A B c D E F G H ,57 A. K. KRAIPAK a ORS. ETC, v. UNION OF. INDIA & ORS. April 29, 1969 [M. HJDAYATULLAll, C.J., J. M. SHBLAT, v. BHAJ.GAVA, K. s. llBGDB ANJ> A. N. GllOVBll, 11.] • Natural Justlc~Applkability of principles to Administrative proceed- ings-Violation of principles by first authority-Effect on 11ltlmae decision. In purs::!lllce of tbe Itldian Forest Service (Initial Recruitment) Rep lation, 1966, framed under r. 4(1) of the Indian Forest Service .(llec:rUit· men!) Rulea made.under the All India Services Act, 1951, a SpeQlli Selec:- tion Board wu conllitulld for llOl&cting oftlc:e'n to the lndlan FOJWt Service in tbe senior and. jlll)ior scales from Ofllcera serving in the fonat department of the Slate Of Jammu and Kashmir. One of the members of the Board was the Chief Comervator of Forests of the State, as tequired by the hgulations. He 'was a Conservator of forests appointed u Aeling Chief Conservator ~ing wwther Conservator of FOres!s_ whose appeal to the State Gowinnient againsi his aupeniession was pending at the time the selections bY the Boaht were made. The Acting Chief Con· servator was aI;O ~ oflhe candidates seeking to he selected to' the Indian Forest Servi~ ·'J1he Board made the selection of officers in the senior and junior sc8les1 . The Acting Chief Conservator's name was . at" . the top <>f the list of oeiOj>!OO ollieen, while the names of three co_.... tors, (including the cl&c<lr-. wit:> was aup<!rseded), who wm . the Acting Chief Conserva(.)l''s riva~ were omitted. The Acting Chief Coruetvator did not sit in the Selectil!ll Board at the time his name was considered,. but participated in , the d#liherations when the names of his rivsls 'ftri> consiclered, He aloo p"'1flcipated in the Board's deliberations while pre- paring the list of se1"W i~andidates in order of preference. The list ond the records were senl to the Ministry. of Home Affairs and the Ministry of Home A1fairs forwar~ the list with its observations to the Ullion Public Service Commissidh, as required by the Regulations, and the U.P.S.C. examined ~ ~ds of the officers afresh and made its ~ mendations. The Oavernment of India thereafter notilied the list. '.The three conservators, whose n.unes were not included in the list, and other aggrieved officers fi;ed a petition in this Court under A'rt. 32 for quashing the notification. ' On the questions : ( 1) Assuming that the proceedingii in the p~t case were administrative prQCeedings, whether principles of natmal justice. applied to the~ Cl) Wijetlier ~ere was a violation of such princi- ples of natural juiticoe in 1'te ptesent caoe; (3) Since the recommeuations of the Board were first Considered by the Home Ministry and the final recommendations were made by , the U.P.S.C., whether there was any basis for the petitioners' grievances; ( 4) Whether there were gl'ounds. for setting aside the selection of all . the officers including those in the junior scales. · HELD : ( l l The rules of natural justice operate in areas not covered by any law v a!idly made, that is, they do not supplant the law of 1he land but SUP!'i<ment it. 1'he~ are. not embodied rules and their aim ia to secure justice or to prevent miscarriage of justice. If that ia their purpose, there is no r:uon Why they should not be made applicable to administrr..- tive proced.ni< also, especially )Vhen it is. 11ot easy to draw the u,,., thM 4S8 S1JPREMI! COUl.T l.l!rORTS [1970] I sc.R. ~ administrative enquiri., from quui-judicial ones, and an A un)ult decision in an administrative enquiry may have a more far-1-eachina effect than a decision in a quui-judicial enquiry. [468F-G; 4698-D] Suruh Koshy Geor11e v. The University of ~ra/a, [1969) 1 S.C.R. 317, State of Orusa v. Dr. (Mw) Binapanl Dti [1967] 2 S.C.R. 625 and /11 rt : H. K. (An Infant) [1967] 2 Q.B. 617, 630, referred to. \ (2) The concept of natural justice has undergone a peat deol of chanae in recent yeass. What particular rule of natural 1ustice should 1pply to a given case must depend to a great extent on the facts and circum- l!allCW of thlt cue, the framework of the law under which the enquiry is held and the coustitution of the Tribunal or the body of persons appointed fer tb1t purpooe. Whenever a complaint is made before a court that llOOle principle of natural justice bad been contravened, the court has to decide whethel" the observance of that rule was neces
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.