Introduction :

Natural justice rules are presumed to apply to bodies entrusted with judicial or quasi-
judicial functions.
Identifying the rules of natural justice in the various circumstances that administrative
decision-makers face has proven to be a difficult task.

Administrative authorities have been charged with the “duty to act fairly” when making
decisions that may have serious consequences for someone’s rights, interests, or
status.

“Natural justice” can be defined as “judicial fairness in decision making” and its main
aim is to secure justice or prevent miscarriage of justice.

Fact of the Case :

A petition was brought by some gazetted officers serving in the Forest department of
J&K to the Indian Forest. Regulation 5 deals with the preparation of the list of suitable
candidates for the post of ex-officio chairman of the selection board. The petition was
dismissed on the grounds that two persons senior to him were superseded.

The UPSC has ordered an investigation into the publication of an impugned list of
selected officers, with Naquishbund’s name at the top of the list. He was also one of
the candidates vying for a position in the All India Forest Service.

The petitioners argued that the process violated the rules of natural justice. The
petitioners argued that the selection board’s power was not quasi-judicial, but rather
administrative.

UPSC found that the board’s sole responsibility was to select officers who, in their
opinion, were suitable for the Forest Service. The petitioners’ grievances are without
merit.

The petitioners claimed that one member of the board was biased against some of the
petitioners and should not have been selected.

Judgment :
The court ruled that the Selection Committee’s decisions violated natural justice
principles because there was a real possibility of bias because the mere presence of
the candidate on the Selection Board could influence the judgment of other members.
The court determined that the Selection Board’s power was administrative in nature
and tested the selection’s validity on that basis.

The Supreme Court of India’s top court has ruled that natural justice principles apply
not only to judicial functions but also to administrative and executive functions. In this
case, the selection committee’s decisions were ruled to be in violation of these
principles, and the selection process was invalidated.

Conclusion :
The court held that the selections made by the Selection Committee were in violation
of the principles of natural justice because there was a real likelihood of a bias for the
mere presence of the candidate on the Selection Board may adversely influence the
judgment of other members.

The Supreme Court ruled in A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (AIR 1970 SC A) that a person
who serves on a committee that selects candidates for a job must not be a candidate
for the job himself. The logic is that the judges could be impartial and neutral.

(Students, in facts of the case, explain in facts an introduction of IFS in 1966- which was explained
during lectures)