UNION OF INDIA versus CHOTHIA (H.P.) AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1978] 3 S.C.R. 652 · Decided: 07-04-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
fl 
652 
UNION OF INDIA 
v. 
CHOTHIA (H.P.) AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
April 7, 1978 
(S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.] 
Indian Forest Service (Initial Recruitment) Regulation of 1966, Regulation 
5, interpretation of-Whether or not the 
pro~'isions of Regulatiori 
5(2)(b) 
mandatory in character-Affidavit in support of a contention must be 
by a 
person competent to certify. 
Respondent No. 1 was selected for Superior Forest Service of the Govern-
ment of Saurashtra in the year 1951. 
On 9-4-1958, he was appointed as Assis-
tant Conservator of Forests, Cl.ass III. Sometime in August 19591 Respondent 
No. 1 was appointed as Deputy Conservator of Forests, consequent upon the 
merger of Saurashtra with Greater Bombay. 
On 1st May, 1956, he was allotted 
to the newly created State of Gujarat and appointed as Deputy Conservator of 
Forests. 
A new service called the Indian Forests Service was 
established in 
1966 and Indian Forests Service Rules were made in 1966. Respondent No. 1 
'"as one of the candidates to be considered for initial recruitment to the Indian 
Forests Service from the State cadre. 
The Selection Board did not recommend 
the selection of Respondent No. 1 and other respondents were selected. Res-
pondent No. 1, filed a writ petition in the High Court of Gujarat. The High 
Court held that Regulation 5(2)(b) of the Indian 
Forests Service 
(Initial 
Recruitment) Regulations, 1966 is mandatory and as the Selection Board did 
not give reasons as enjoined by this provision, the selection made by the Board 
was illegal. The selection as well as the Notification dated January 7, 1972 · 
were quashed accordingly. 
Dismissing the appeals, by special leave the Court 
HELD : I. The provisions of Regulation 5 (2 )(b) of the Indian 
Forests 
Service (Initial Recruitment) Regulations 1966, are mandatory in character and 
whenever the Board sends the records to the Commission, it must give 
its 
reasons as required by S. 5(2)(b) of the Regulation. [655 G-H] 
' 
2. (a) Regulation 5 manifestly shows that the provision 
required 
three 
essential conditions to be complied with :-
(i) that the Board shall prepare in order of preference a list of 
officers of the State Forest Service in accordance with Regula-
tion 4; 
(ii) that the Board must adjudge persons whom it thinks suitable 
for the appointment to the posts; 
(iii) that the Board shall send the records of eligible officers of the 
State who are not adjudged as suitable together with reasons 
recorded by the Board. 
[655 A-Cl 
/ ' 
•· 
• 
(b) The words "shall than be referred to the Commission for advice 
by 
the Central Government along with" are of a mandatory character and govern 
not only clause (a) but all the other clauses viz. (b) and (c). The 
require-
n1ents mentioned in clauses (a), (b) and (c) must be complied with before 
the recommendation is sent to the Commission. [655 C-D] 
,. 
(c) Clause (b) of Regulation 5(2) is in public interest and has been made 
with a view to avoid arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion by the Board 
and also to prevent any hostile discrimination. Clause (b) clearly states that 
\Vhere eligible officers of the State Forest Service are not found suitable, reasons 
must be given by the Board for their non-inclusion in the select list. [655 DI 
,.-
-
I 
' 
-
~ 
~ 
"' 
~ 
~ 
• 
\ 
UNION OF INDIA v. CHOTHIA (Fazal Ali, J.) 
653 
K. G. Vasudevan v. State of Kerala (Unreported case No. O.P. 2910/72 
dated J-10-1975) of the Kerala High Court); over-rnled. 
A 
(d) The wonl "adjudge" is a very strong term and indicates that the Board 
must be satisfied that a person is not suitable and the requirement for· giving 
reasons has been enjoined for the purpose of proving that the Board was not 
only satisfied but has given grounds of its satisfaction so as to exclude possibi-
lity of any oblique or extraneous considerations. 
The Commission would also, 
B 
be in a position to know the views of the Selection Board and the reasons given 
by it for excluding a particular candidate so that it may verify the correctness 
of the reasons given by the Board with the record forwarded by 
the 
Board. 
Pe1usal by the Board of the confidential rolls of officers and 
forwarding 
the 
record to the commission is not substantial compliance with the provisions of 
Regulation 5(2)(b). Regulation 5(2)(b) is not an idle formality. [655 C-F] 
3. In the instant case, the deponent in the affidavit, not being a member of 
C 
the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.