/

A.K . KRAI PAK V. UNION OF INDIA

I. fo'ACTS OF TH E C ASE
~

/. Ct \:!:!1 is_E:: tition

was lilcd in the Supre me Court of Ind ia by some of the
Gazett ed Officers servin g in the forcs~ partm cnt of the State of Jamm u
a nd Kas hmir} ~ ll of them felt aggriev ed by the selecti ons made from
among
{•b.the office rs servin g in the forest depart ment of the State of Jamm u and
- Kashm ir to the lndinn Forest Servic~ a service consti tuted in 1966
under
Sectio n 3( 1) of the All India Se rvices Act, 1951 and the rules framed
there
under. \Accor ding to 1'hem the s ck c tions n otified in lhe said notific ation
arc
violati ve of Articles 14 and 16 of the Consti tution a nd on the furthe r
groun d
/ . c.. . that the selecti ons in q~Jio n are vitiruc d bv the contra ventio n
of the
princip les of natura l justice )

Th e centra l govern ment h as powers under Sectio n 3 of the All India

servic es
Act, 1951 to make rules for appoin tment of officer s in con sultati o n
with the
s ta te govern ments .

The only rule relevan r fo r our presen t purpose is Rule 4(1) which reads:

As soon as may be, a fte r the comm en cemen t of these rules , the
Cc.-ntra l
Gover nmen t m ay recrui t to the service any person from a mongs
t the
m ember s of th e Stat e Fo rest Servic e a dj u dged s uitable in accordance
with
su ch Regula tion s as the Ce ntral Gover nme nt may make in consu ltation
with
the State Gover nme nts and lhe Comm issio n .

Regul ation 3 o f the In dia For1:·s1 St·iv1c es Regula tion, 1966 provid
es for the
Con stituti on of a specia l selec tion board . lt s ays th a t th e purpo se
o f makin g
s electio n to State cadre . the Centra l Gover nm ent shall consti tute
a specia l
selectio n b oard con s istin g of lhr Ch ait m un uf the Unio n Public
Servic e
Comm ission or his nomin ee, thC' lnspC'c tor Cenc.-rnl of ForC's
ts of the
Gover nmen t of lndifl . nn officer of lhC' Go\'rr n nw nt of India n ot b
elow th e
rank of Joint Sec rC'ta rY. th f' Chwf ~rcrct nn to thl· State Goven
1ment
conce rned or the Secre tary of tha r Go vernm ent dcalin !?, \\' 1t h the forest s
and
the Chief Con servat or of Fore!'\ ts of tht: !:,tale Goven1mcn t con cerned
.
Regul ation 4 pres c ri bes the concl itions o l eligib1 lity. Tha t Regul
ation
I
. a J - }' \r l
A-tt- I 'Y '\C '~ .a.~
co nt cm pl at cs t he fo
rr o~ n or a se rv ic e
in th e se ni or
th e ju ni or s ca le . fe sr al c an d a sc1v1ce in
gu la tio n 5 is im po rta
,l .d wi~ h th e pr epa ra tio n o r th nt for o ur pr rs cn t pu
rp os e. It ckaJs
e lis t of su ita bl e ca nd
~" tl Db ~ i. o c~ Ofi
id ;n es . It , en es: ~
~ p.61'1t <9fJ Uv -
(.i v- /l. c. ,u .cv.,c>
t1 l Th e Bo ar d sh al l pre pare: V' ~~ .J
. in th e or de r of pr ef
of St at e Fore:,;t Se 1v rre nc c. a lis t or su ch
ice wh o sa tis fy th e officers
co nr lit io ns sp ec ifi ed
an d w ho an .• a dj \.t dg in Re gu lat io n 4
ed by th e Boa.rd s ui
ta bl e fo r ap po in tm ('n
se ni or an d Ju ni or s t to po sts in th e
ca le s of th e Se nr ic e.

(2 ) Th e lis t pr ep
ar ed
in ac co rd an ce
wi th Su b- re gu la tio n
re fe rr ed to th e Co (I) sh al l th en be
m m is si on fo r ad vi ce
. by th (' Ce nt ra l Go
w ith : ve rn m en t a lo ng

(a) th e re cor<ls of all

of fic er s of St at e Fo re
st Se rv ice in cl ud ed in
th e lis t:
(b) th e re co rd s o f
al l ot he r eli gi bl e of fic
er s of th e S ta te ForC'st
no t ad ju dg ed s ui ta Se rv ice wh o ar e
ble for in clu sio n in
th e lis t. to gl 'lh er wi th
rc co rn cd lw th e Bo t hl.' re as on :. as
ar d fo r th ei r no n -in cl
us ion in th l· lis t; an d
(c ) th e ob st 'n·at io ns .
if a nv . (,t th l' :.l in is tiy of Ho me Affairs on
re c,J m m en da tio n ~ nf th e
1hc Bo a rd .
~:::-. ~ • -.-A ~ f . t, ~
--
n i "t. r"L U rl
U n n· ce 1p t o 1· t h e lis t al on g wi th 1h1..• oth(·1
rlo ru m cn is r ~ c 1 . I •
- ' ); •
C
~ .
- , . ~ , ~ ~ ~l.'
C l'H lr3 I '-,..' o\ ·er n1 en t t he Cbmm1ss1un s lm ll to n, a1 it--ll,.s recommi:'nda11on
' s to
,h; I ~ 1 en~ /
-

- --
In ur su an ct · o f th es e u1 . s a se n· i(l ·
b" a1 1I w as 1:ons11tut
p rl.' g a uo n ed wh ic h
w as to a dj ud ge th e . I' . IF S frolll th<.; st at ..
ca n d 1da1es o1 e ol .I ,--..::. 1,
.

, .e. ~aquishb::tn-d. th e c~1<..t. co ns;..l·n- •at or of l 1'"1111 11I I un e

- - I
-
on t h e l J<M. rd It m us t Je no te d th at n pe1111nn
---:-- - -
. o th at h e h ad - -
11111·,-.1~

k·
•

1 fo
at t h a

r
h ·1c

Lh e
l be

po
e
-
wn s al so
n fik d \J~ on e o r hi s

s e ni or s a1Jeg1n"' bC 'l' ll ov er lo o t:<

-
st .
-- - _ 1
- -
.. !-.dcctrcl I lo "'' '',
ub sc qu t:' nt ly . so m e, or I hl ' of lin·r~ \\ t'l l • .,. no t~ r
- - - f
~ - - . -' th e\ ' "' - 1 l1·" t" d so k\ \
\\ c, , s ' .._ on th e ba sis o
in tt: 'n.: ie w of th ei rs ;i - t·, kc n an u
·
- -.
w;: , - - - sd t'c trc l n1gur1I th at
· - -
th
th ei r official rcco1c :s . I - jof fi1·e rs w ho nr 1t he r l\
L--- -, -- - -\\'( 11' nu t .
- ._
_L~
-- - -
I ~ew as to what was there in their olT:icial records nor were they given a
chance to represent themselves before thr board. }

l •';\.. Naqishband was also one of the contenders for a post in the lfS. The court .
however con fid ed with ,'h c view
· t J1a t he did not sit in the meeting when his
name wa s discussed .)

:}_ QUESTION BEFORE THE COURT:-

~ Was the appointment ofNaquishband to I.he board of selection valid?

J~:J Whether the principles of natural justice a pply w the present ad ministrative
proceedings?

J,, JUDGMENT:-
~

3,. / . ~ up,·eme Court 111 its ruling decided thau the appointment of Naqu ishband
in the select ion board was inappropriate)

3 ,::) . Morcovcr. [th e court emphasized 1.he poim that the rules of natu ral jus tice
apply to the presen t proceedings. J
5· 3.fr?e court ruled tha t the Sekctiu11 C01nrnittee's decisions violated natural
justice principles because- th<' r<· w :is r-, real possibility of bias because the

- - ---
mt:re presence of the cl'lndidf!I<' on the Selectio n Board could influence the
-- - -------
judgm ent of o rh er membr'.;.)
-

3 .y. fuc cou ~ de~ ~c~h~ the Sc leerion I lof!rcl ·~ power was adm inistrat ive in
- n ature and tested the selecrion 's w1liditv on thar basis )

The n a tura l just ice pri11ciples ap ply not only IO judicial fL111ctions but a lso to
a dministra tive and exccu1i ve fu n ctions. In !his case, Lbt: selection
committee 's decis ions we re ruled to lie in \'iolntion of tlwsc principles . an d
the selection proress was invalid a ted .

,~ required a ll
3 ,f,' (This case demons tra tes tha 1 im pA ninlil\' in acljudirntion
111

proceedings, n ot just in judi,i:d procecdrng: J

REASONING
 The court s aid Lhal the appoinLme nL of Naqishband in Lhe p1·esent case as a
me mbe r of the board was unfortunate. The court furthe r obs erved tha t it
wa s true 1ha t orclina iiJy the Chief Conse rvator of Forests in a Sta te should
be co n sidered as the most a ppropria te pe rson to b e in the s election board.
He mus t be expected to know his officers thoroug hly, the ir weaknesses as
well a s Lhei1· stre ngth . llis opi.nion as regards their suitability for s e le c tion to
the All India Service is entitled to great weig ht. But then und e r the
c ircums tances it was improper to have included Naquishbund as a m e mber
of the s e lec tion board. He was one of the pe rsons 10 b e conside re d for
scle cUon. It is against all ca nons of justice to m ake a man judge in his own
cause. The court observed that though it has been stresse d by othe r
members of the board by way of affida vit that Naqishband never tried to
influenc e their decision making in a n egative sense . The court observed that
his m e re presence in the board casts a doubt in the minds of other
candidates and thus it canno t be allowe d a s justice must not on ly b e done
bt1t seen to be done as well.

3.c. Fn,ecourt s:.ij cJ tha t Lhe :1 im o l' t he r ules ofn a t u rn l JUSl ice is to s<·cu re just ice
- o r to p LII it 11t·g:1 LJ\•d y Lu pre\·cn t 11 1i:-.c:i rria ge of jusucel Tlwsc- ntlrs can
o p<:'n'l t <' 1111 1:v in :1n·:1~. 11 n1 cm·,-rei.! 1.Jy a,1\ lnw \'a lid ly mndc . In u1h c-r word s
the \· do no t :::11ppl:m 1 11,,· bw nr tlw l:111 : '.J u l ~u ppk m c nt iL The concept of
naru ra l justice h as LU1dcrgom· r, grc,1 1 ck·al of c hange in recent years. 1n the
pa st it was t h o u g ht 1l1 a 11t in c l11d <"ci 1us1 two ni k s n a mely ll) 0 o one shall be
a _i u dg<' in his own ~ e (Ncmo tlelH·I c: --; •w 1uckx p rop1i a causa) and (2) ~
decision shall be given ilgnin s l a party \\'ilhuul ,dTor ding him a reason a ble
,:;;;;:_111gJ (a U<.li a ltc ra nt pa rt c m}. Vt·rv soon t hcrc::ifter a thi rd ru k \\'as
--
r· rn·1•.;;1gccl :ind 1 11:1 1 ,,: 1h,1t qu m.i - 111d1u. I 1·11q\1i :·1• ·; 1111t'> l be hP \d in good
fa ith , wn hou1 lii,1~ ,incl 1101 nrbi trnrily r 1t llllll' i~u11.1lil_\ . If the purpo s e of the
rule s of n a tural ju s tice is to p n;\·1.: n c 1111sc nriiagc 0f justice onc fail s to see
why those rules s hould he rna<lf' in:ippli c:11Jk to ·1dmi111strnl 1vl' enqui ries.
Often times ir is n o t easy 10 c.l nt \\' Lh c li n e that clr- marratf'" mlministrative
enquiries from quasi-judicial enquirif's. 1-;;nquirir·,; which ,,•f•n· cnnsiclcrc cl
administrative a t one time Rr<' n o \\' bc inv <·onsiclcred n s 4u:lsi-judic ia.l in
character. Arriving at a j u s t dct:1~it1n 1::; the i.ll fn L1f bot h 41,.1as1-jLtd icial
enquirie s as well cis aclmi11 1:--trnLi \L cn q wrics An un_iu s1 decis ion in an
administrative e n quiry may have more far reaching e ffect than a decision in
a quas i-judic ial e nquiry.

Natural j ustic e rules a pply in a reas not covered by any validly e nac ted law,
i.e. they supplem e nt rath er than replace the law of the land. An unjust
d ecision in a n admi nistra tive inquiry may have a more far - reaching e ffect
Lhan a decision lfl a quasi-judicial inquil)' •

Inquiries mus t be conducted in good fa ith and without bias. and not
arbilrarily or unreasonabti) When a court receives a complaint alleging that
a n atural justice principle has been violated, the court must determine
whether the violation was required for a just d ecision on the facts of the
case.

The Ac ting Chief Conserva tor was biased in his decision to appoint a
successor· to the original conservatory. The other members of the Board were
unaware tha t the s '-!-pe rseclecl conservator's appeal was p ending b e fore the
S tate Govern m ent a t the time o f selec tion, so had no reason to doubt his
j u dgment.