Case: Union of India Vs. Chothia (H.P.) and Others Etc

The facts have been detailed in the Judgment of the High Court and it is not necessary to repeat the same all over again. Suffice it to say that Respondent No. I was selected for Superior Forest Service of the Government of Saurashtra in the year 1951. On 9-4-1958, be was appointed as Assistant Conservator of Forests, Class III. Sometimes in August, 1959, Respondent No. 1 was appointed as Deputy Conservator of Forests consequent upon the merger of Saurashtra with Greater Bombay. On 1st May, 1960 the State of Gujarat was created and Respondent No. 1 was allotted to the Gujarat Cadre and appointed as Deputy Conservator of Forests. Sometimes after in the year 1966, there was amendment in the All India Service Act by which a new service called the Indian Forests Service was established and Indian Forests Service Rules were made in 1966. In the instant case, we are only concerned with the interpretation of the Regulation 5 of the Indian Forest Service (Initial Recruitment) Regulation ofNo. 1 was one of the candidates to be considered for initial recruitment to the Indian Forest Service from the State Cadre. It appears that the Selection Board did not recommend the selection of Respondent No. 1 and other respondents were selected. Respondent No. 1, therefore, filed writ petition in the High Court of Gujarat for quashing the selection made by the Selectionsole point that was urged before the High Court was that the mandatory provisions of Regulation 5 dated 1st September, 1966 as amended uptodate had been violated and, therefo re, the selection made by the Board was illegal. The High Court accepted the plea taken by Respondent No. 1 and allowed the writ petition as indicated above. The Union of India obtained special leave of this Court and hence this appeal before us.T he short point which falls for determination in this case is as to whether or not the provisions of the Regulation 5 (2) (b) of the Indian Forests Service (Initial Recruitment) Regulations, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations) are mandatory in character. The High Court held that Regulation 5(2) (b) is mandatory and as the Selection Board did not give reasons as enjoined by this provision, the selection made by the Board was illegal.

Court's reasoning:
The High Court does not appear to have applied its mind to the language used in S. 5 (2) (b) of the Regulation, nor has it considered the avowed purpose of this provision which is undoubtedly in public interest. In these circumstances, therefore, we find ourself unable to agree with the view taken by the Kerala High Court on this point and we overrule thethe first place, the affidavit appears to have been given by a person who was not a member of the Selection Board and as the recommendation was by a non-speaking order lie would not at all be conversant with the manner in which the recommendation was made ignoring the Respondent No. 1. No r had he any knowledge of the way in which the mind of the Board was working at that time. The deponent, therefore, was not at all competent to certify as to what was the reason given by the Board as required by Regulation 5 (2) (b) nor could the affidavit supply an omission made by the Selection Board in not complying with the mandate contained in Regulation 5 (2) (b). Secondly, the affidavit is obtuse because according to the Deputy Secretary, there was no obligation placed on the Selection Board to give reasons for the supersession of the said Forest Service Officers. This view as we have pointed out, is absolutely incorrect and is not borne out by the language of the provision of Regulation 5. Apart from this, the High Court has pointed out in its judgment at page 31 of the brief that the Court bad given an opportunity to the appellant to produce the records before it so as to find out if the confidential records of the Respondent No. I did not justify the selection. The appellant did not choose to avail of the opportunity given to it by the High Court which clearly indicates that the position was somewhat obscure.For these reasons, we find ourself in complete agreement with the judgment of the High Court and endorse the same.