Brief Facts:
A selection board (hereinafter referred to as Board) was constituted for the purpose of recruiting for the post of Indian Forest Services (hereinafter referred to as Post) as per the rules and regulations made under section 3 of the All India Services Act, 1951. Naqishbund was serving as a Chief Conservator of Forests though his position was not confirmed as it was challenged in the state government by Basu, his rival and it was pending till during the selection for the Post had been made. Naqishbund was one of the members of the selection board and surprisingly was also a candidate for the same and besides, Basu was also a candidate. Consequently, Naqishbund assisted the Board members while examining the candidates including but not limited to his rival, Basu; but when Naqishbund was being examined, he was not a part of the Board. In pursuance of regulation 5 of Indian Forest Service (initial recruitment) regulations, 1966, the Board had to make a preference list for the eligible candidates and it turns out that Naqishbund was at the top of the list implying that he was the most preferred candidate for the Post. Aggrieved by the selection process, Basu along with his colleagues filed a suit to struck down the entire selection process stating that it violates Article 14 and 16 of the constitutions and also alleged that selection process vitiates the principles of Natural Justice.
Relevant Provisions:
The Indian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules,
1966 (refereed as the rules)
Rule 4(1): As soon as may be, after the commencement of these rules, the Central Government may recruit to the service any person from amongst the members of the State Forest Service adjudged suitable in accordance with such Regulations as the Central Government may make in consultation with the State Governments and the Commission.
The Indian Forest Service (Initial
Recruitment) Regulations, 1966 (referred to as the regulations)
Regulation 5: ―(1) The Board shall prepare, in the order of preference, a list of such officers of State Forest Service who satisfy the conditions specified in Regulation 4 and who are adjudged by the Board suitable for appointment to posts in the senior and junior scales of the service.
(2) The list prepared in accordance with sub-regulation (1) shall then be referred to the Commission for advice, by the Central Government along with—
(a) the records of all officers of State Forest Service included in the list;(b) the records of all other eligible officers of the State Forest Service who are not adjudged suitable for inclusion in the list, together with the reasons as recorded by the Board for their non-inclusion in the list; and(c) the observations, if any, of the Ministry of Home Affairs on the recommendations of the Board.
(3) On receipt of the list, along with the other documents received from the Central Government the Commission shall forward its recommendations to that Government.
Issue(s):
1.
Whether the Principles of
Natural justice (PNJ) should be applied?
2.
If PNJ is applicable, Whether
Naqishbund being a Board member besides being a candidate for the Post, amounted
to bias?
Contentions of the parties:
The very first contention of the Petitioners
was that the powers conferred under the rules and regulations are quasi-judicial
in nature. To support this contention, the petitioner relied on the word ‘adjudged’
mentioned in the Rules and the Regulations and interpreted in a way that the
selection must be done judicially thereby making it a quasi-judicial power; therefore,
it was argued that the PNJ should be applied. The attorney general appearing
for the respondent countered by contending that the word ‘adjudged’ mentioned
thereunder simply means ‘found worthy of selection’ and therefore is a
subjective determinant. Ultimately, it was argued that the PNJ should not be applied.
The petitioners further contended that though Naqishbund was considered as the forest conservator officer, it was inappropriate to include him as a member of the Selection Board since he appeared to be a candidate for the Post. It was also alleged that the presence of Naqishbund in every process may influence other Board members in the decision making and therefore amounting to bias. The respondent simply submitted the affidavits signed by all the members of the Board stating that they were not influenced by Naqishbund in any way during the course of the selection process. The respondent added that the Selection made by the Board was not the final decision anyway. Moreover, the UPSC has to give its confirmation. It was argued therefore that the grievance of the petitioner has no real basis.
Holding:
The Supreme Court held that the powers conferred under the Rules and the Regulations are of administrative in nature; moreover, the Principles of Natural Justice must be applied in the present case to arrive at a just decision. Having said this, the Supreme Court declared the selection process to be impugned as there exists a reasonable likelihood of bias and hence directed to struck down the selection. Hence the petition is allowed.
Rationale:
Earlier, it was generally believed and
followed that the PNJ must be applied to every quasi-judicial action alone. But
in this case, the idea of PNJ was expanded; the exact words of K S Hegde. J. is as follows:
The dividing line between an administrative power and a quasi-judicial power is quite thin and is being gradually obliterated. For determining whether a power is an administrative power or a quasi-judicial power, one has to look to the nature of the power conferred, the person or persons on whom it is conferred, (…) The concept of rule of law would lose its vitality if the instrumentalities of the State are not charged with the duty of discharging their functions in a fair and just manner. The requirement of acting judicially, in essence, is nothing but a requirement to act justly and fairly (…) What was considered as an administrative power some years back is now being considered as a quasi-judicial power.
Essentially the court assumed the power conferred to be Administrative actions yet check the validity of the selection process by using PNJ, in a way establishing the principle that irrespective of the nature of actions, fairness must comply with every administrative action.
Coming to the
bias part, the Court considered the human possibilities and ordinary course of
human conduct for establishing a reasonable likelihood of bias. The court observed
that there is a possibility where Naqishbund can keep his rivals out from
getting selected; it is also his interest to keep his position at the top. The
Court also rejected the affidavits by saying that the papers cannot confirm or
prove the working of the mind. The court was unable to believe that Board members
functioned like computers. The court also observed,
If the decision of the selection board is held to have been vitiated, it is clear to our mind that the final recommendation made by the Commission must also be held to have been vitiated. The recommendations made by the Union Public Service Commission cannot be disassociated from the selections made by the selection board which is the foundation of the recommendations of the Union Public Service Commission.
Ultimately, the Court had struck down the impugned selection order thereby, setting aside the selection of not only Naqishbund but along with other officers as well.
Click here for the text of the Judgment
No comments:
Post a Comment