UNION OF INDIA Vs. H P CHOTHIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals by special leave are directed against the Judgment of the division bench of the Gujarat High Court dated 18th March, 1977 by which writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1 was allowed and the impugned selection made by the Selection Board was quashed as also the notification dated January 7, 1972.

(2.) 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. 1 was selected for Superior Forest Service of the Government of Saurashtra in the year 1951. On 9-4-1958, he was appointed as Assistant Conservator of Forests, Class III. Sometimes in August, 1959, the Respondent No. 1 was appointed as Deputy Conservator of Forests consequent upon the merger of Saurashra with Greater Bombay. On 1st May, 1960 the State of Gujarat was created and the Respondent No. 1 was allotted to the Gujarat Cadre and appointed as Deputy Conservator of Forest. 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 of 1966. The respondent No. 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 the 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 Selection Board.

(3.) The sole point that was urged before the High Court was that the mandatory provisions of Regulation 5 dated 1st Sept. 1966 as amended up to date had been violated and, therefore, the selection made by the Board was illegal. The High Court accepted the plea taken by the 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.