JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was as follows : Petitioner joined the West Bengal Senior Forest Service on 1st of April, 1947. He was appointed to officiate in the post of Deputy Conservator of forest on 1st of January, 1949. In 1961 he was promoted to the post of Conservator of Forest and on October 12, 1964 he was confirmed in the permanent post of Conservator of Forest. On 1st of July 1966 the Central Government by Ministry of Home Affairs Notification No. S.0.2525 dated August 20, 1966 constituted the Indian Forest Service in exercise of powers under Section 2A of the All India Services Act 1951. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the All India Services Act 1951, the Central Government framed the Indian Forest Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1966. The said Rules came into force from 1st of July, 1966. On 1st of August, 1966, 34 officers were recruited to the Indian Forest Service of probation in the Indian Forest Service ,Cadre of West Bengal by a Notification No. 3/16/66-A(IV) dated 9.2.67. On 2nd of September, 1968 the respondent no. 6, J. K. Ganguly was confirmed in the Indian Forest Service Cadre of West Bengal with effect from 1.10.67. On April 29, 1969 the Supreme Court of India set aside the selection of the State cadre of Jammu and Kashmir in the case of (1) A. K. Kraipak v. Union of India ( AIR 1970 SC 150 ). On 7th of February, 1970 the petitioner' was appointed on promotion in the Indian Forest Service, West Bengal State Cadre and by a Notification dated 26.9.73 he was confirmed in the Indian Forest service on the State Cadre of West Bengal with effect from 7.2.71. On 1st of March, 1971 the Central Government framed sub-rule (3A) of Rule 4 of the Indian Forest Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1966. By a Notification dated 17th of July 1971 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Cabinet Secretariat Department of Personnel three notifications dated 9th February, 1967, 28th May 1968 and 17th of July 1968 by which the officers were recruited under sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of the Indian Forest Services (Recruitment) Rules; 1966 to the West Bengal Cadre of the Indian Forest Service with effect from 1st of October, 1966 have been rendered ab initio void. It was also stated in the said notification that consequently the Central Government proposed to take further steps to make fresh recruitment under sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of the Indian Forest Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1966. On 19th October. 1971 under Rule 6 of IFS (Recruitment) rules, 1966 the President appointed 41 West Bengal State Forest Officers recruited under sub-rule (1) read with sub-rule (3A) of Rule 4 of the said rules on probation to IFS with effect from 1st of October. 1966. On 17th of May 1972 under Rule 6 of IFS. (Recruitment) Rules, 1966, the President appointed those 41 officers of the West Bengal Forest Service to West Bengal Cadre of IFS under sub-rule (1) read with sub-rule (3A) of Rule 4 of the said Rules with effect from 1st of October, 1966,. On 3rd of July, 1974 provisional gradation list of the officers borne in the West Bengal Cadre in the Indian Forest was published showing the position of the respondent no. 6 at serial no. 4 and that of the petitioner at serial no. 5. According to petitioner the appointments as made by the notifications were made mechanically without any application of mind and only for the purpose of regularising with retrospective effect the appointments made initially in the year 1966 without consideration of the fresh or relevant materials and without considering the petitioner's case. It is the case of the petitioner that as the selection of first initial recruitment for the State Cadre of West Bengal was not rendered invalid by any judgment or order of any court and as such retrospective effect sought to be given to the second selection to the initial recruitment for the State Cadre by a notification dated 17th May, 1972 is liable to be set aside as ultra vires and illegal. Petitioner being aggrieved, moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and obtained the present Rule. 2. The original petition was amended. An affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of the Government of West Bengal was filed and affirmed by Amal Krishna Gupta, the Deputy Secretary of Forest Department, Government of West Bengal. It is stated therein that the list of officers eligible for inclusion in the first selection list for promotion to Indian Forest service was submitted to the Selection Committee for consideration. The petitioner's name was included in that list of eligible officers. It is stated therein that the list of officers eligible for inclusion in the first selection list for promotion to Indian Forest service was submitted to the Selection Committee for consideration. The petitioner's name was included in that list of eligible officers. The Government of India informed the State Government under its memo dated March 6, 1969 the approved names in the selection limit. In the said list the name of the petitioner did not appear. The second Selection Committee sat in 1969. When the approved names were finally sent, petitioner's name was there. In view of the selection in 1969 and approved by the Union Public Service Commission on February 7, 1970 the petitioner was promoted to the Indian Forest Service under a notification dated August 14, 1970. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kraipak v. Union of India in the matter of initial recruitment to the Indian Forest Service in the State of Jammu and Kashmir Cadre, the Government of India duly considered Objectively the judgment and decided to cancel all the earlier appointments and make fresh initial recruitment under sub-rule (3A) of the Indian Forest Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1966. Accordingly, the appointment to the Indian Forest Service through initial recruitment against the State Cadre of West Bengal was declared ab initio void under a memorandum dated July 17, 1971. An arrangement was made for fresh selection. The respondent no. 6 was junior to the petitioner in West Bengal Senior Forest Service; but while the respondent no. 6 was appointed in the Indian Forest service on probation, with effect from 1st of October, 1966 as an initial recruit under Rule 4 (1) of the Recruitment Rules and was confirmed in the 'post of a Conservator of Forest in the Indian Forest Service with effect from 1st October, 1967, the petitioner was appointed on probation in the Indian Forest Service with effect from 7th February, 1970 as a promotee 'Under Rule 8 of the Recruitment Rules and confirmed in the post of Conservator of Forest in the said Indian Forest Service with effect from 7th February, 1971. The respondent no. 6 is an initial recruit in the Forest Service with effect from October 1, 1966 and the petitioner is a "promotee" to the said Indian Forest Service with effect from February 7, 1970. 3. It is contended by Mr. The respondent no. 6 is an initial recruit in the Forest Service with effect from October 1, 1966 and the petitioner is a "promotee" to the said Indian Forest Service with effect from February 7, 1970. 3. It is contended by Mr. Ray, appearing on behalf of the petitioner in support of the Rule, that in exercising powers under sub-clause (1) of Section 3 of All India Services Act, 1951, the Central Government bas got no power to amend sub-rule (3A) of Rule 4 of 1he Indian Forest Services (Recruitment) Rules. 1966 retrospectively Parliament can delegate its legislative powers within the recognised limit. Where any rule is made by any authority to whom such powers have been delegated by the legislature, it cannot be possible to make the same so as to give retrospective operation. Unless the language employed in the Act in expressed terms or by necessary implication empower the Central Government to make such rule with retrospective effect. Reliance was placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in (2) Hukam Chand v, Union of India, AIR 1972 SC 2427 . 4. Mr. Bose, appearing on behalf of the Union of India, contended that this identical point has been decided by the Supreme Court in (3) Panez Quodir v. Union of India, AIR 1975 SC 446 . 5. Sub-rule (3A) of rule 4 of the Indian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1966 reads as follows : "(3A) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Rule where appointments to the service in pursuance’s of the recruitment under sub-rule (1) have become invalid by reason of any judgment or order of any Court, the Central Government may make fresh recruitment under that sub-rule and may give effect to the appointments to the service in pursuance of such fresh recruitment from the same date on which tile appointments which have become invalid as aforesaid bad been given to." 6. It appears that the above amendment was made by the Central Government in exercise of the powers confirmed by sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the All India Services Act, 1951, and all other powers enabling it in this behalf. 7. Entry 70, List I, Schedule 7, provides for "Public Service Commission; All India Services; Union Public Service Commission". It appears that the above amendment was made by the Central Government in exercise of the powers confirmed by sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the All India Services Act, 1951, and all other powers enabling it in this behalf. 7. Entry 70, List I, Schedule 7, provides for "Public Service Commission; All India Services; Union Public Service Commission". Article 309 provides that subject to the provision of this Constitution, Acts of the appropriate Legislature may regulate the recruitment, and conditions of service of persons appointed, to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State. Although the legislative entries mentioned above referred to only to public services; Article 309 refers to "posts" in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State. Article 309 enables the appropriate legislature to regulate the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and to such posts. All India Services Act, 1951 was enacted by Parliament to regulate the recruitment, and the conditions of service of persons appointed, to All India Services, common to the Union and the States. That Act was enacted under the main part of Article 309 read with entry 70, List. 1. 8. In (4) B. S. Vadera v. Union of India, AIR 1969 SC 118 , the Supreme Court observed with reference to rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the constitution that these rules could be made with retrospective operation. The Supreme Court said that as a ,legislature can legislate prospective, by as well as retrospectively there can be hardly any justification for saying that the President or the Governor should not be able to make rules in the same manner so as to give, them prospective as well as retrospective operation. For these reasons the ambit and content of the rule making power under Article 309 can furnish no analogy or parallel to any, other case. 9. In Vadera's case the question arose whether the Railway Board had power to modify scheme with retrospective effect. The Indian Railway establishment Code has been framed by the President, in exercise of the powers vested in him, by the praviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. Under Rule 157 of the Establishment Code the Railway Board has full powers to make rules of general application of Non-Gazetted Railway Servant under their control. The Indian Railway establishment Code has been framed by the President, in exercise of the powers vested in him, by the praviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. Under Rule 157 of the Establishment Code the Railway Board has full powers to make rules of general application of Non-Gazetted Railway Servant under their control. The Supreme Court 'observed that in that case there was no Act of the appropriate legislature regulating the recruitment and conditions of service and therefore the main part of Article 309 is not attracted. But, under the proviso therein, the President has got full power to make rules, regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of persons. 10. In the instant case, the appropriate Legislature has passed the All India Services Act 1951, under Article 309 of the Constitution. All India Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules have also been framed under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of All India Services Act, 1951. That being so, in my opinion, there is no bar in giving retrospective effect to sub-rule (3A) of Rule 4 of, the Indian Forest Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1966. It is to be noticed that in the notification not only reference is made to sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the All India Services Act, 1951 but all other powers enabling it in this behalf. 11. In (3) Parvez Quadir's case, AIR 1975 SC 446 at page 452 the Supreme Court remarked in connection with Sub-Rule 3A of Rule 4 of the Indian' forest Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1966 that the Central Government had power to make such Rule under Section 3 of the Act had not been challenged and in the opinion of their Lordships there was no doubt about it. 12. In (5) Shyamal Kumar Sarkar v. Union of India, 76 CWN 729, the retrospection of sub-rule (3A) was also raised. Salil K. Dutta, J. applying the principle as laid down by the Supreme Court in Vadera's case observed; "On the same principle, it seems clear that the Rules framed under the All India Services Act may be given retrospective operation unless thereby there is a breach of part III or any other constitutional or statutory provision". 13. In Hukam Chand's case as referred to by Mr. Ray ( AIR 1972 SC 2427 ). an Explanation was added to rule 49 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955. 13. In Hukam Chand's case as referred to by Mr. Ray ( AIR 1972 SC 2427 ). an Explanation was added to rule 49 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955. The said Explanation reads as follows : "In this Rule and in other Rules of this Chapter, the expression "Agricultural Land" shall mean agricultural land situated in Rural Area". That amendment was given retrospective effect by providing that the said Explanation was deemed to be always to have been inserted. The Supreme Court said that there was nothing in Section 40 from which the power of the Central Government to make retrospective Rules might be inferred, in the absence of any such power, the Central Government acted in excess of its powers in so far as it gave retrospective effect to the Explanation to Rule 49. That Explanation could not operate retrospectively. 14. In Hukam Chand's case, Vadera's case was distinguished on the ground that the view expressed therein was based upon the language employed in the proviso to Article 309. 15. In view of above, I am unable to accept the contentions of Mr. Ray that sub-rule (3A) could not be given any retrospective effect. 16. It is next contended by Mr. Ray that the selection for initial recruitment for the State Cadre of West Bengal was not rendered invalid by any judgment or order of any court and as such conditions precedent for exercising powers under sub-rule 3 (A) have not been fulfilled. According to Mr. Ray the notification dated 17th May, 1972 by which recruitments have been made is Illegal and without jurisdiction. 17. The Supreme Court struck down the initial recruitment made to the Indian Forest Service Cadre of Jammu and Kashmir on the ground, that the Chief Conservator of Forests who was himself a candidate for the Indian Forest Service, was a member of the Selection Board. That is the decision of the Supreme Court in Kraipak's case, AIR 1970 SC 150 . The fact that the Chief Conservator of Forests had absented himself from participation in the proceeding of Selection Board when his own case was under consideration had not been accepted by the Supreme Court for not striking down the initial recruitment. That is the decision of the Supreme Court in Kraipak's case, AIR 1970 SC 150 . The fact that the Chief Conservator of Forests had absented himself from participation in the proceeding of Selection Board when his own case was under consideration had not been accepted by the Supreme Court for not striking down the initial recruitment. Acting on the principle as laid down by the Supreme Court that a person could not be a Judge in his own cause, the initial recruitment to the Indian Forest Services in the States of Assam, Bihar and Mysore had also been struck down by the High Courts of those States. The Government of India had filed applications in the Supreme Court for special leave to Appeal against the judgments of Assam and Mysore High Courts. The Supreme Court, however, dismissed the special leave applications. The effect of the Supreme Court's decision dismissing the special leave application is that, in all the States wherever the Chief Conservator of Forests was both the candidate and a member of the Selection Board, the principles of natural justice had been violated and initial recruitment to the service had been rendered ab initio void. To obviate these difficulties sub-rule (3A) of Rule 4 of the Indian Forest Services (Recruitment) Rules has been framed. The Indian Forest Services (Initial Recruitment) Regulations, 1966 has also been amended instead of the Chief conservator of Forest. the Secretary to the State Government concerned dealing with forest has been included in the Selection Board. 18. In (5) Shyamal Kumar Sarkar's case. 76 CWN 729 the selection made by the Selection Committee in the West Bengal Cadre was challenged on the ground that K. Lahari the then the Chief Conservator of Forests was a member of the Selection Committee as well as he was a candidate. The petitioner prayed for a Writ for quashing the said selection made by the Selection Committee. This Court did not think it proper to issue any Writ in respect thereof, as such a Writ would be infructuous when the impugned selections have been declared by the Union of India as void ab initio. 19. It is true that similar to Jammu and Kashmir, Patna, Assam and Mysore initial recruitment to the Indian Forest Service in W.B. has not become invalid by any particular judgment or an order of any court. 19. It is true that similar to Jammu and Kashmir, Patna, Assam and Mysore initial recruitment to the Indian Forest Service in W.B. has not become invalid by any particular judgment or an order of any court. But at the same time it cannot be said that where initial appointments have been made by a Selection Beard consisting of the Chief Conservator of Forests who was also interested in the selection, the reasons in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kraipak's case that a person could not be a judge in his own cause, would not be attracted. Thus, in view of the said judgment all initial recruitments in all the different States of India have become invalid. Therefore, it cannot be said that conditions precedent for exercising powers under sub-rule 3 (A) have not been fulfilled in the instant case. 20. As both the points raised by Mr. Ray fail, this Rule is discharged. There will be no order as to costs. All interim orders are vacated.