PARVEZ QADIR versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1975] 2 S.C.R. 432 · Decided: 16-10-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

~_, - --- ---
~ : 
.P 
: ... . 
... 
) 
432 
PARVEZ QADIR 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
OctDber 16, 1974 
[P.JA:i.~'I·D :t.\'1 R!!O:>'(, P.N. BIIAOWATI AN'O P. K. G03WAMI, JJ.} 
All rnJia s~nlc!1 .4ct, 1951-rniian PortJI Service (Cadre) Ruru 1966--Tndian 
1'3m 1 Sv,ict (R 1~uit-n!nl) R·~ltr 1965-R ·~It 4(1>-Conru/t~tlon with U.P.S.C. 
w'••th•r ultra •lrlr-'::on/iitntial roll!-Whtthtr could be coriJidued for adjudglf1$ 
1uiia~Uity of a ca'liid:Jtt for a hlghu poJt- Rwler and Ttl/Illations lnttrchangtabic 
worth. 
By in::orp,ratiog s. Z.A in th' A\1 India. S:rvicC~ A~. 1961 the Iaiia~ Forc' t 
Service was constituted as an All lndta S!rvtce. Th' G:>vernm ~ot of Iod~a m1do 
the Indian Fore~t Service (Cadre) Rules, 1966 and th' Indtan F.orc>t S:rvtco (f!.e• 
cruitment) Rules, 1966. By Rule 3 ot th' Cadre Rules the Ind1an Forest S!mco 
was constituted for each State and was referred to as tho State cadre. After. th' 
comme~ment of the Recruitment Rules the Central Government was e:~jotnei 
IIDder Rule 4{1) of tho Recruitment Rules to re:ruit to th' service any p!rson fr?rn 
among1t the members of State Forest S:cv.ice adjudged suitable In ac~ordan.:e wllb 
auch reaulatlons as the Central Government m1y m:11te in coo1ultntion with. tho 
State GovctDment and the Union Public Service Commission. The Indian Forest 
Service (F'~Aation or Cadre Strensth) Regulatiotn, 1966 came into Co reo with. effect 
from Octobec I, 1966 and the Indian Por4't Service {Initial Recruitm~o t) R~sula.
tions, 1966 came Into ron:o on July I, 1966. ReJul.tuon 4 or tho Initial R~r~ it· 
ment Regulations deals with conditions or elisibiluy for ro;rultm3nt to tho scrvtc& 
while resilhtion S deals with preplration or li:>U of •uit.ablo om:eu. In accordance 
with ttnr~ rul!\ ani re1~htb~• th~ initial ClDitituti:ln or l b: s~rvico a nd recruit. 
ment thereto was made in July 1967 but this w.u im"D::diately ch~Jie:tg~. la A. 
X. Kralpak & Ort. ttt. v. Union of India Qlld Ors. this Court muck dowa ttlo ooti• 
ficatioo and the selo=;tions mlde w:re set asid~ 
In a p:titioa \IDdcr artidc 32 or th' Co:ntitutio:~ th3 p:titiO:I!C QU3lUO:I:i tht 
delesatioo under rule 4(1) 10 m1lcc rellJlatio:H which th: A:t d iJ o :>t auth')r\s3 • 
He contended (I) th!lt the initial ro:ruitm~t must b3 ml:ic only Cram :~m>:t&1t those 
memben who ue in State Fortlt Service on th' d.1tc wh:u the aclectioa w;u ~~etually 
mado and Dot on tho ~to or initial colUtltution of the cadre; (2) tb.tt ev"o if tho 
ael~>;tiooa were to be mldo from emoo~ tho p:noos who w:ro m:m!>:rs of tho 
State Por~ Service as on tb' d>;te of tho initial re;:ruitnpnt caaiU;ntM roUs or those 
peroons which have to be conSidered sboul:1 b' tho so wtlich hm vo bo.u wrlttea up 
to the time_wben selection.• were 1.'1 ra:t m1~; (3) thl t th' adjudsm:lllt or suitability 
oo the b~• o! conOdentt&l entms and o~bec rccoci is ~trbitracy and coasequeotly 
re&Uiatioa S """ invalid. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
01 b:!nlJ of th: State It w11 C):lte:t:l~ th'lt th3 rulo1 alii re1u1at1oo.s ahniJ 
bt red at integrated rules reilr.iio& re:ruitmP: uli~r s. 3 0 ~ till A. :t. 
' 
Dilmlilioa the petition. 
HeLD:. There iJ no juuiR~uo11 lor the ap;>ll::...tlo:t ot artlclc1 1-4 aa;l 16 or 
tb: C>:asWUIWQ to tho f•~t.s aoi cit.;.~:aua~:3J or tlllt CliO. 
(4 n BJ 
G 
. (l) Th: ~1teotiun h u~~·nb:• &'I! m lit b, r:)l;to1. 
R 11lo 4(1) of th' Re· 
c:r~ttro:1t ll•!ks Cl11~t b, red w •. tln:lt talo 3(1) blt m l <t bl r~d tOJ>th!r anl tilt 
J>:>U311 w':u W;t6. ell"tblo to r=:r~l~ ,,, w:ro t!tll' " 'I) 0'1 tin d Lte o r tt'll C)'lltl· 
IU\10''1 or II'.', tcrvt:.. Wlr6r n>:u'>>rl o! ell) S:ue P..t~Olt Suvi; ) lllJ w'n c:n f->r•nl-1 
to thHnl.unl or ell&•b:loty lot O'Ji h r:ph!in 4. 
R·ll' ~ ( Z) or til) Rl::llitrn::tt 
Rulo~ !urtb:t ml1: It cldlr IIlli art or t'u r J; · ait<nl11 u'll ,.. u ':l-ral, (I) sub1,~ u :lt 
tCJrllllllunt t., tlu Ssrvl~ h&1 t'> !>~b" a d,rrs:n: rn•t'nl w'\1·'1 wu p -~ 1 -cib;.i 
u~J.>r cJ•·ne. (~), (u) ani {b) of th\t &;,!,~ale. (HJ D·I!J 
• 
· • 
H 
. Ttu,renn WI'/ O lt:>'>ll' I, .H~S wu tl'B'l &l tin d ~~~ f..t: th> Ia I tiii c>ll 11. 
UIL.>l o, J.lu hi,.t fl..tr~tt S:N1;• n t~&t b';&'Jlt u11': ralt 3(4) ot II\) R':r.a it-
A 
B 
c 
D 
P.UV!Z QA.DII y. VNION (Jaganmohan Rtddy, /.) 
.j33 
ment Rules recruitment was to be made at tho Initial coMtitution of the service. 
Under r~ulation 6 of the initial recruitment Regulations the appointments have to 
be made in the State cadres and sinoo the strength or tho cadre in each State 
w
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.