Ak Kraipak V Union Of India, case analysis

Ak Kraipak V UOI case analysis

1. Kraipak v. Union of India (1970)

2. Background The petition was raised by A.K. Kraipak and other gazetted officers. According to the Indian Forest Service (Initial Recruitment) Regulation, 1966, a special selection board was constituted for selecting officers in the Jammu and Kashmir forest department. The chief conservator of the state's forest was one of the board members, who was also an acting chief commissioner.The acting chief conservator participated in discussions regarding applicants, despite his name being considered.

3. Petition The acting chief conservator's name topped the list, while three other conservators were omitted. The list was sent to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) for recommendations. Aggrieved officers petitioned the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India to quash the notification.

4. Issues and Arguments Whether the principles of natural justice were violated. Whether the rules of natural justice apply to administrative proceedings. Whether the petitioner's grievance is valid.

5. Arguments of Petitioners: The appointment was arbitrary and unconstitutional. It was influenced by personal bias and political factors. They sought a precedent for merit-based selection.

6. Arguments of Respondents The selection board's role was administrative, not quasi-judicial. They argued that the board made recommendations, not adjudications. They contended that one personal bias doesn't invalidate the whole board.

7. Court Decision The Supreme Court held that the selection was against natural justice principles due to genuine bias. The court ruled that the selection board's authority was administrative. The principle of natural justice extends beyond judicial functions to administrative ones. The court declared the decision unconstitutional for violating natural justice principles. The court emphasized that natural justice aims to prevent miscarriage of justice and is applicable to administrative proceedings.

8. RATIO Nature of the Power: Examine the nature of the power given. Recipient of the Power: Identify who holds the power. Legal Framework: Consider the legal context that grants the power. Rule of Law: Ensure that the administration operates under the rule of law, which requires fairness and justice in their actions. Consequences: Look at the outcomes of using the power. Exercise of Power: Evaluate how the power is expected to be used. The requirement to act judicially means acting justly and fairly, not arbitrarily. The aim of natural justice rules is to secure justice and prevent its miscarriage. These rules support, rather than replace, existing laws. Key Points: Recommendations by the selection board are significant and should be given weight by the U.P.S.C. Enquiries previously seen as administrative can now be considered quasi-judicial. Both quasi-judicial and administrative enquiries aim for just decisions. The selection process for senior and junior scale services comes from the same group, making it hard to distinguish between the two sets of officers.