H. P. Chothia v. Union of India — 1977 DIGILAW 27 (GUJ)

JUDGMENT : P. D. Desai, J. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Conservator of Forests (Class II) in the superior Forest Service of the State of Saurashtra. On the merger of the State of Saurashtra in the bigger bilingual Bombay State on November 1, 1956, he was allocated and absorbed as Assistant Conservator of Forests In August 1959, the petitioner was promoted to the Bombay Forest Service, Class I, as Deputy Conservator of Forests. On bifurcation of the bigger bilingual Bombay State on May 1, 1960, the petitioner was allocated to the State of Gujarat and he was absorbed as Deputy Conservator of Forests. He came to be confirmed as Deputy Conservator of Forests in the Gujarat Forest Service, Class I, on and with effect from May 1, 1960. 2. The All India Services Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the parent Act") was amended by the All India Services (Amendment) Act, 1963 enacted on September 6, 1963. The amendment Act introduced section 2-A in the parent Act and the said section provided for the constitution of three other All India Services of which the Indian Forest Service was one. By a notification issued under section 2 A by the Central Government, the Indian Forest Service was constituted on and with effect from July 1, 1966. By virtue of the powers conferred by section 3 of the parent Act, the Central Government made certain rules with a view to regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to the Indian Forest Service Those rules, which came into force on and with effect from July 1, 1966 were the Indian Forest Service (Cadre) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "the Cadre Rules") and the Indian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Recruitment Rules"). Rule 3 of the Cadre Rules provided for the constitution of an Indian Forest Service Cadre for each State or group of States and the Cadre so constituted was referred to as the State Cadre or, as the case may be, the Joint Cadre. The strength and composition of each of the cadres, constituted under Rule 3, was dealt with by Rule 4 of the Cadre Rules which provides that the strength and composition shall be as determined by regulations made by the Central Government in consultation with the State Governments in that behalf. The strength and composition of each of the cadres, constituted under Rule 3, was dealt with by Rule 4 of the Cadre Rules which provides that the strength and composition shall be as determined by regulations made by the Central Government in consultation with the State Governments in that behalf. In exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 4, the Central Government, in consultation with the State Governments, framed the Indian Forest Service (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regulations, 1966 fixing the strength and composition of the cadre of the Indian Forest Service in each of the States as specified in the Schedule annexed thereto on and with effect from October 1, 1966. So far as the State of Gujarat is concerned, the sanctioned strength of the cadre was 28 which consisted inter alia of 26 senior posts under the State Government and 2 senior posts under the Central Government. 3. The other set of Rules, namely, the Recruitment Rules provided in Rule 3 that the Indian Forest Service shall consist of (1) members of the State Forest Service recruited to the service at its initial constitution in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (1) of Rule 4; and (2) persons recruited to the service in accordance with the provisions of sub-rules (2) to (4 of Rule 4. Under sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of the Recruitment Rules the Central Government was enjoyed, as soon as may be after the commencement of the Rules, to 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 Union Public Service Commission. Under sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 provision was made for subsequent recruitment and it prescribed different modes of recruitment under clauses (a), (aa). Under sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 provision was made for subsequent recruitment and it prescribed different modes of recruitment under clauses (a), (aa). and (b) of the said sub- rule The Indian Forest Service (Initial Recruitment) Regulations, 1966 (hereinafter called "the Initial Recruitment Regulations") enacted in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule(l) of Rule 4 of the Recruitment Rules came into force on and with effect from July 1, 1966 Under Regulation 3 of the said Regulations, the Central Government was empowered to constitute a special Selection Board consisting of the Chairman of the Union Public Service Commission or his nominee, certain officers of the Union Government and States specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of clauses (a) for selection to the State Cadres, and certain officers mentioned in sub-clause (i) to (iv) of clause (b) for selection to the cadre of Union Territories. Regulation 4 of the Initial Recruitment Regulations prescribes conditions of eligibility. Regulation 5 deals with the preparation of list of suitable officers, and Regulation 6 deals with appointment to the Service. We shall refer to the relevant Regulations in detail at the appropriate place in the course of this judgment. 4. The process for initial recruitment to the Indian Forest Service was initiated in accordance with the aforesaid Rules and Regulations and the Special Selection Board appointed for the purpose under Regulation 3 of the Initial Recruitment Regulations considered all eligible officers of the Gujarat Forest Service including the petitioner. The petitioner was, however, not found suitable by the Special Selection Board. By a notification of the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, dated December 22, 1966, the President appointed 26 Gujarat State Forest Service officers to the Indian Forest Service Cadre of Gujarat with effect from October 1, 1966. By a subsequent notification dated July 4,1967 two more officers belonging to the Gujarat State Forest Service were also appointed to the India Forest Service Cadre of Gujarat. It would thus appear that the petitioner, though he was at the material time holding the post of Deputy Conservator of Forests, Gujarat in a substantive capacity, was not adjudged suitable for being appointed to the Gujarat Cadre of the Indian Forest Service and was accordingly not appointed thereto. 5. It would thus appear that the petitioner, though he was at the material time holding the post of Deputy Conservator of Forests, Gujarat in a substantive capacity, was not adjudged suitable for being appointed to the Gujarat Cadre of the Indian Forest Service and was accordingly not appointed thereto. 5. By writ petitions filed in the Supreme Court of India, some of the gazetted officers serving in the Forest Department of the State of Jammu and Kashmir challenged the appointments made under the Initial Recruitment Regulations in the Jammu and Kashmir Cadre of the Indian Forest Service I by a notification dated July 29, 1967. The appointments were challenged on the ground that the selections notified were violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and on the further ground that the selections in question were vitiated as being opposed to the principles of natural justice. In the said writ petitions, the vires of section 3 of the parent Act, Rule 4 of the Recruitment Rules and Regulation 5 of the Initial Recruitment Regulations were also challenged. The Supreme Court in its decision rendered in the said group of petitions (A. K. Kraipak v. Union of India, AIR. 1970 S.C 150 ) struck down the notification of appointment on the ground that the principles of natural justice were not complied with, in that one of the aspirants to the recruitment for service, namely, the Acting Chief Conservator of Forests, was also a member of the Selection Board. All the selections made pursuant to the recommendation of the Selection Board were set aside. In so far as the vires of the statutory provisions was concerned, the Supreme Court did not think it necessary to go into the question as it was striking down the notification for violating the principles of natural justice. As a result of the decision of the Supreme Court, Regulation 3(1) (a) (iv) of the Initial Recruitment Regulations was amended on September 6, 1969 in respect of the composition of the Selection Board and by another notification of the same date, after sub-rule (3), sub-rule (3-A) was added to Rule 4 of the Recruitment Rules. As a result of the decision of the Supreme Court, Regulation 3(1) (a) (iv) of the Initial Recruitment Regulations was amended on September 6, 1969 in respect of the composition of the Selection Board and by another notification of the same date, after sub-rule (3), sub-rule (3-A) was added to Rule 4 of the Recruitment Rules. The said newly added sub-rule empowered the Central Government to make fresh recruitment under sub-rule (i) to fill up such appointment and to give effect to the appointment so filled up from the same date on which the appointment which was declared invalid as aforesaid had been given effect to. 6. The decision of the Supreme Court in A. K. Kraipak's case (supra) had its ramifications even on the selections made to the State Cadre of the Indian Forest Service in other States, for the Special Selection Board in all the States consisted as one of its members, the Chief Conservator of Forests of the State Government concerned, who was a person interested in the selection. The selections made by such Special Selection Board were, therefore, treated ab initio void in all the State Cadres (except Nagaland) and the appointments made to the service under the Initial Recruitment Regulations in pursuance of the recommendation made by such Special Selection Board were annulled. Consequently, the appointments made to the Gujarat Cadre of the Indian Forest Service by the notifications dated December 22, 1966 and July 4, 1967 were also treated as void ab initio by a notification dated October 19, 1971 issued by the Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India. Under the said notification, it was notified that the Central Government proposed to take further steps to make recruitment under the relevant rules. 7. By an order dated October 12, 1971 issued by the Government of India, Cabinet Secretariat. Department of Personnel, the Central Government constituted a new Special Selection Board for making fresh selections to the Gujarat Cadre of the Indian Forest Service under the Initial Recruitment Regulations. The Special Selection Board met in October, 1971 at Ahmedabad and considered the service records of all the eligible officers including the petitioner up to the year 1966 for making fresh initial recruitment to the Gujarat Cadre of the Indian Forest Service. The Special Selection Board met in October, 1971 at Ahmedabad and considered the service records of all the eligible officers including the petitioner up to the year 1966 for making fresh initial recruitment to the Gujarat Cadre of the Indian Forest Service. On the basis of the assessment of the material as it existed on the date of eligibility, namely, July 1, 1966, it made a fresh selection. In the process of selection, the petitioner was not adjudged suitable for appointment to the State Cadre under the Initial Recruitment Regulations and, therefore, his name did not find place in the notification dated January 7, 1972 issued by the Government of India, Cabinet Secretariat, Department of Personnel, which notified the names of the State Forest Officers appointed to the Indian Forest Service with effect from October 1, 1966. 8. Two material facts need be taken note of at this stage, namely, that: (1) officers of the Gujarat Forest Service who were admittedly junior to the petitioner found place in the list of officers appointed under the aforesaid notification ; and (2) by this time the petitioner was already appointed to the Indian Forest Service with effect from July 17, 1969 under Rule 4(2)(b) of the Recruitment Rules read with the relevant provisions of the Indian Forest Service 'Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "the Promotion Regulations"). In other words, though on the date on which fresh selection was made as aforesaid under the Initial Recruitment Regulations, the petitioner was not found fit and his juniors were found fit for appointment to the State of the Indian Forest Service on the basis of the assessment of their respective service record up to 1966, he was on the material date already holding a post in the State Cadre of the Indian Forest Service pursuant to his promotion to such post under a different set of Rules and Regulations. In the present petition, the petitioner has mainly challenged the fresh selections in question made under the Initial Recruitment Regulations rand the appointments made pursuant to such selections in the Gujarat Cadre of the Indian Forest Service. 9. Though different prayers have been made and numerous grounds have been raised in the petition, the petitioner pressed for only one relief and urged only one ground for consideration at the hearing of the petition. 9. Though different prayers have been made and numerous grounds have been raised in the petition, the petitioner pressed for only one relief and urged only one ground for consideration at the hearing of the petition. The relief was ' confined to the quashing and setting aside of the appointments made to the Gujarat Cadre of the Indian Forest Service under the notification dated January 7, 1972 pursuant to the fresh selections made under the Initial Recruitment Regulations and the sole ground on which the said relief was claimed was that the Special Selection Board failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of Regulation 5 of the Initial Recruitment Regulations and the rules of natural justice by omitting to state reasons for non-inclusion of the petitioner and other eligible State Forest Service Officers into the Select List. The contention in terms was that it was incumbent on the Special Selection Board to have stated reasons disclosing how the record of each officer who was not adjudged suitable for initial recruitment stood in relation to the others who were recruited and that the Special Selection Board had not only omitted to do so but it had also failed to state any specific reasons for not including the name of the petitioner and other eligible officers in the Select List. According to the petitioner, mandatory requirement of Regulation 5 having not been complied with and rules of natural justice having been violated by not stating reasons as aforesaid, the selections made and appointments given pursuant to such selections were null and void and also violative of the provisions of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. In support of this contention, heavy reliance was placed on behalf of the petitioner on the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. M. L. Kapoor and others, A. I. R. 1974 SC 87. 10. The petition is resisted by the Union of India and the State of Gujarat who are the first and second respondents respectively. On behalf of the first respondent, Mr. 10. The petition is resisted by the Union of India and the State of Gujarat who are the first and second respondents respectively. On behalf of the first respondent, Mr. M. R. Bhardwaj, Under Secretary to the Government of India in the Department of Personnel, Cabinet Secretariat, New Delhi has made two affidavits-in-reply, the first dated January 6, 1973 and the second dated December 1, 1976 On behalf of the second respondent, Mr H T. Joshi, Under Secretary to the Government of Gujarat, Agriculture, Forests and Co-operative Department, has filed an affidavit-in-reply dated January 18, 1977 The rest of the respondents namely, the Union Public Service Commission and the Officers whose appointments are impugned in the present petition, have not entered appearance nor have they filed any affidavit-in-reply So far as the factual position is concerned, there is substantially no dispute In the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the first respondent, it has been admitted that the petitioner was considered for selection under the Initial Recruitment Regulations both at the stage of the first selection and the fresh selection by the respective Selection Boards and that he was not adjudged suitable on either of the occasions, having regard to his service record as up to the eligibility, namely, July 1, 1966 It is also an admitted position that officers junior to the petitioner in the State Forest Service were selected by the Special Selection Board for initial recruitment under the Initial Recruitment Regulations on the basis of their service record up to the relevant date. 11. So far as the challenge to the impugned selection on the ground pressed at the hearing is concerned, the stand on behalf of the first respondent as disclosed in the second affidavit of Mr. Bhardwaj is that no obligation was placed on the Special Selection Board to state reasons for non-inclusion of an eligible state Service Officer in the Select List under the provisions of the Initial Recruitment Regulation. In this connection, it has been stated in terms in the second affidavit-in-reply filed by Mr. Bhardwaj as under :- "I respectfully submit that no such obligation is placed on the Special Selection Board constituted under Regulation 3 as would be clear from the reading of Regulation 5 (2) (b)". In this connection, it has been stated in terms in the second affidavit-in-reply filed by Mr. Bhardwaj as under :- "I respectfully submit that no such obligation is placed on the Special Selection Board constituted under Regulation 3 as would be clear from the reading of Regulation 5 (2) (b)". It also appears to be the case of the first respondent that the provisions of Regulation 5 (2) (b) of the Initial Recruitment Regulations were complied with in the present case and in this behalf, the stand of the said respondent as disclosed in the second affidavit of Mr Bhardwaj is as under :- "The Special Selection Board has gone through the service record of the petitioner and other eligible officers and has come to a conclusion of not including the name of the petitioner in the Select List, the reasons being that his service record was not such as to justify the inclusion of his name in the Select List. These reasons were communicated to the Union Public Service Commission along with the service record as per requirement of Regulation 5 (2) (b) As submitted earlier the Special Selection Board considered the service records of all the eligible officers and on an over-all assessment of these records came to the conclusion whether a particular officer was suitable or not for appointment to the Indian Forest Service at its initial constitution. In regard to those officers who were not adjudged suitable by the Board, the Board had clearly stated that on an over-all assessment of their service records it did not and 'The them suitable for appointment to the Indian Forest Service. I submit that the conclusion was not to include the name of the petitioner in the list of officers adjudged suitable and the reasons were given, viz., that bis service record did not justify inclusion of his name in that List These reasons along with his service record were sent to Union Public Service Commission and the requirements of Regulation 5 (2) (b) have been fully complied with". It would thus appear that the stand of the first respondent is that no reasons were required to be recorded for non-inclusion of a State Forest Service Officer in the Select List under the relevant Regulations and that, in any case, the reasons required to be forwarded to the Union Public Service Commission for such non-inclusion so far as the petitioner is concerned, were already sent In the affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent by Mr. Joshi, this aspect of the challenge has not been specifically dealt with. At the hearing, however, the stand of the second respondent was the same as that of the first respondent. 12. We might at this stage clarify that in response to a specific question put by the Court, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent had made it clear at the hearing that the aforesaid statement contained in the second affidavit of Mr. Bhardwaj sets out fully and extensively the reasons which weighed with the Special Selection Board for non-inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the Select List and that beyond those reasons no other reasons were recorded and forwarded to the Union Public Service Commission. We might also indicate that, when this petition had reached hearing before one of us, i. e., myself, sitting as a Single Judge, an opportunity was granted and time was allowed to the contesting respondents to produce before the Court the record and proceedings of the Special Selection Board which met at Ahmedabad in October 1971 to make fresh selections in order to supplement the reasons as aforesaid by reference to the material considered by the Special Selection Board and to disclose how the mind was applied to the subject-matter of selection The opportunity thus offered was, however, not availed of and it was specifically stated on behalf of the said respondents that the concerned authorities did not desire to produce before the Court the record and proceedings of the Special Selection Board. It would thus appear that the admitted position which appears from the record is that the only reason which weighed with the Special Selection Board for non-inclusion of the name of the petitioner and other eligible officers in the Select List and communicated to the Union Public Service Commission was that on an overall assessment of their service records, it was found that the inclusion of their names in the Select List was not justified. 13. In order to adjudge the validity of the challenge, it would be necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Initial Recruitment Regulations. Regulation 2 (a) defines "Board" to mean the Special Selection Board constituted under Regulation 3. Regulation 3 provides for the constitution of the Board for the purpose of making selection to the Service It, inter alia, provides that for selection to the State Cadres, the Board shall consist of the Chairman of the Union Public Service Commission or his nominee and other officers of the Central and State Governments concerned. The Chairman of the Union Public Service Commission or his nominee has to preside at all the meetings of the Board. Regulation 4 prescribes conditions of eligibility and, since in the present case there is no dispute about the eligibility of the petitioner for being considered for selection under the Initial Recruitment Regulations, it is not necessary to set out the contents of the said Regulation. Regulation 5 has a direct bearing on the decision of the petition and it may be set out in extenso :- "Preparation of list of suitable officers. Regulation 5 has a direct bearing on the decision of the petition and it may be set out in extenso :- "Preparation of list of suitable officers. - (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 his along with the other documents received from the Central Government, the Commission shall forward its recommendations to that Government". Regulation 6 provides that the officers recommended by the Commission under sub-regulation (3) of regulation 5 shall be appointed to the Service by the Central Government, subject to availability of vacancies, in the State Cadre concerned. 14. The analysis of the aforesaid provisions of the Initial Recruitment Regulations would show that, for the purpose of making selection, a Special Selection Board, which is to be presided over by the Chairman of the Union Public Service Commission or his nominee, is required to be constituted. The Board is required to prepare, in the order of preference, a list of all eligible officers of the State Forest Service who are adjudged by the Board suitable for appointment to posts in the senior and junior scales of the Service. The Board is required to prepare, in the order of preference, a list of all eligible officers of the State Forest Service who are adjudged by the Board suitable for appointment to posts in the senior and junior scales of the Service. The list so prepared has to be referred to the Union Public Service Commission for advice by the Central Government and along with such list it is required to send: - (1) the records of all officers of the State Forest Service included in the list; (2) the records of all other eligible officers of the State Forest Service who are not adjudged suitable fur inclusion in the list, together with the reasons as recorded by the Board for their non-inclusion in the list ; and (3) the observations, if any, of the Ministry of Home Affairs on the recommendations of the Board. The Union Public Service Commission, on a consideration of all the aforesaid material, has to forward its recommendations to the Central Government and the officers recommended by it have to be appointed to the Service by the Central Government, subject to availability of vacancies, in the State Cadre concerned. 15. Two questions arise against the background of the aforesaid statutory provisions, namely (1) whether it is the mandatory requirement of Regulation 5 that the Board must state reasons for the non-inclusion in the Select List of such eligible officers of the State Forest Service who are not adjudged suitable for inclusion; and (2) if so, what mist be the content of those reasons. We shall examine both these questions in the list of the statutory language as well as of the object and purpose underlying the enactment of the relevant Regulations. 16. The relevant facts set out at the commencement of this judgment would reveal that when the Indian Forest Service was constituted as an All India Service and certain posts were designated as Cadre posts in such Service, there was in existence in the various States, the State Forest Service. There were senior posts in such State Forest Service such as Chief Conservator of Forests, Conservator of Forests, Deputy Conservator of Forests and the like. These posts were meant for and held substantively by qualified officers of the State Forest Service of wide ranging experience who had put in a number of years of service. There were senior posts in such State Forest Service such as Chief Conservator of Forests, Conservator of Forests, Deputy Conservator of Forests and the like. These posts were meant for and held substantively by qualified officers of the State Forest Service of wide ranging experience who had put in a number of years of service. The aforesaid posts or a large number of them, if there were more than one such post were designated as Cadre posts under the Indian Forest Service (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regulation, 1966 and under Rule 8 of the Cadre Rules, every cadre post was required to be filled by a cadre officer, that is to say, a member of the Indian Forest Service. In order to ensure smooth change over and to minimise the impact of the creation of the Indian Forest Service and the consequences ensuing therefrom, a special provision was made for the initial recruitment to such Service from amongst the officers of the State Forest Service who, on the date of the constitution of the Service, were holding cadre posts in the State Forest Service either substantively or in an officiating capacity for a certain number of years. It is only after such initial recruitment was made that the question of subsequent recruitment to the Service by a competitive examination or by promotion of a substantive member of the State Officer or by selection of persons from certain designated categories was to be considered (See Rule 4 of the Recruitment Rules). It would thus appear that at the birth of the Indian Forest Service, its initial recruitment was confined to the eligible State Forest Service Officers many of whom had already been holding cadre posts either substantively or in an officiating capacity for the prescribed number of years. For such officers, their selection by initial recruitment was a matter of prime importance because they were at the material time already holding senior posts in the State Forest Service and some of them might even be disqualified from holding such posts, if they were cadre posts, unless they were initially selected accordingly. For such officers, their selection by initial recruitment was a matter of prime importance because they were at the material time already holding senior posts in the State Forest Service and some of them might even be disqualified from holding such posts, if they were cadre posts, unless they were initially selected accordingly. In any case, initial recruitment to the Indian Forest Service gave the advantage of seniority to the selected officers over those who were not adjudged suitable, thereby altering in many cases, as in the present case, the existing position in the matter of seniority as and from the date of selection It would thus appear that the initial recruitment to the Indian Forest Service under the Initial Recruitment Regulations stands in a class by itself and that its provisions have been enacted bearing in mind the aforesaid background and that they will have to be interpreted in the said light. 17. Coming now to Regulation 5 and examining its language closely, it would appear that the Selection Board is required under Sub-regulation (1) to prepare, in the order of preference, a list of all eligible officers of the State Forest Service who are adjudged by the Board suitable for appointment to posts in the senior and junior scales of the Indian Forest Service. The test to be applied by the Board, namely, suitability, and the mode prescribed for assigning respective places on the list to the selected candidates, namely, according to preference, postulate a close examination and weighment of merits of each candidate at two stages. First, the selection Board has to closely scrutinize, on the basis of the material available, the case of every eligible officer from the point of view of suitability and decide whether the officers possesses such merit as would justify his inclusion in the Select List. If the scrutiny results in favour of the officer, he gets an entry into the list. The second stage is then reached and at that stage the Selection Board has to assess the relative merit of each selected candidate and assigning preference, on the basis of such assessment, so far as placement on the Select List is concerned Sub-regulation (2) gives an indication that this objective assessment has to be made on the basis of the service record of all eligible officers of the State Forest Service. In this connection the following observations in Harvez Qadir v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1975 SC 446 in the context of this very Regulation may be cited with advantage : - "It is the duty of the Special Selection Board to prepare a list from amongst the State Forest Officers and such a list can only be prepared in order of seniority (sic) if the respective records of each of such officer is considered and the comparative merit assessed. The past performance of an officer being one of the criteria for making selection, the only way to adjudge their suitability is by perusal of confidential record............... The word 'suitability' itself is correlated with the object of recruitment, namely, that a person has to be considered suitable for appointment to a superior service which itself furnishes the norm that he is considered suitable having regard to his service in the State Forest Service. This in turn refers only to the past records of the service in the State as an officer of the State Forest Service The Special Selection Board under regulation 5(2) (a) has to adjudge the suitability of an officer from his service records which form the basis of the preparation of the list and the list so prepared after consideration of the records would reflect the overall assessment of the officers of the State Forest Service." It would thus appear that the Selection Board has to perform a function which, though administrative, has to be exercised fairly and impartially and such evaluations have to be so made as to be above suspicion of unfairness or bias although they do not require a quasi-judicial proceeding to ensure such a result (See Union of India Vs. M. L Kapoor, A.I.R. 1974 SC 57 The word 'adjudged" has, therefore, been advisedly used in sub-regulation (1) and its implication stands explained by the aforesaid two decisions of the Supreme court. 18. Under Sub-regulation (2), the list prepared in accordance with sub-regulation (1) is required to be referred to the Union Public Service Commission for advice. M. L Kapoor, A.I.R. 1974 SC 57 The word 'adjudged" has, therefore, been advisedly used in sub-regulation (1) and its implication stands explained by the aforesaid two decisions of the Supreme court. 18. Under Sub-regulation (2), the list prepared in accordance with sub-regulation (1) is required to be referred to the Union Public Service Commission for advice. Along with the list, the Central Government is required to send to the Commission, (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) His observations, if any, of the Ministry of Home Affairs on the recommendations of the Board. Under sub-regulation (3), the Commission has to forward its recommendations to the Central Government and it is implicit in the scheme of Regulation 5 that the Commission can discharge this function only after it applies its mind to the material referred to in clauses (a), (b) and (c) above which is placed before it by the Central Government. It is significant to note in this connection that, under Regulation 6, the officers recommended by the Commission under sub-regulation (3) have to be appointed to the Indian Forest Service by the Central Government, subject to availability of vacancies, in the State Cadre concerned. A place on the approved Select List in a certain order of preference, therefore, confers a right to be appointed to the Indian Forest Service and under the statutory regulations themselves the recommendations of the Commission having been made final, the Commission performs not merely the consultative function which it usually does but the function of putting its imprimatur on the Selection List prepared by the Selection Board which list itself in its turn after such imprimatur becomes the final list of selected candidates which cannot be disturbed by the appointing authority, namely, the Central Government. 19. Bearing in mind the aforesaid provisions and the nature of function to be performed by the Commission, the provisions of sub-regulation (2) may be scrutinised. 19. Bearing in mind the aforesaid provisions and the nature of function to be performed by the Commission, the provisions of sub-regulation (2) may be scrutinised. The Central Government is required to send along with the Select List the record of all officers of the State Forest Service included in the list so that the Commission can decide as to whether their selection is justified and whether the order of preference assigned to such officers on the list is borne out on a comparative assessment of their service record. The Central Government has also to forward the records of all other eligible officers of the State Forest Service who are not adjudged suitable for inclusion in the list- This, however, is not the only requirement. The Central Government has also to send along with such records "the reasons as recorded by the Board for their non-inclusion in the list". Be it noted that the words are "the reasons as recorded by the Board" and not "the reasons, if any, recorded by the Board". The provision is clear and specific and its implication is that recording of reasons is a necessary step in the process of adjudgment of the non-suitability of an eligible officer though sub-regulation (1) does not in terms provide for the same. It becomes clear, therefore, on a combined reading of sub-regulation (1) and sub-regulation (2) that the duty to record reasons in the process of ruling out of consideration the name of an eligible officer for inclusion in the Select List is a mandatory requirement of Regulation 5. 20. It becomes clear, therefore, on a combined reading of sub-regulation (1) and sub-regulation (2) that the duty to record reasons in the process of ruling out of consideration the name of an eligible officer for inclusion in the Select List is a mandatory requirement of Regulation 5. 20. The conclusion which we have arrived at as aforesaid on an interpretation of the language of sub-regulations (1) and (2) of Regulation 5 stands fortified by three other considerations : (i) the nature of the function to be performed by the Selection Board which has to exercise its powers reasonably and fairly and not arbitrarily and capriciously (ii) the nature of function to be performed by the Commission under this Regulation which can he performed satisfactorily only if it has before it not only the record of the officers found not suitable for inclusion in the Select List but also the view of the Selection Board as to why a particular eligible officer was ruled out of consideration ; and (iii) the consequences of the non-inclusion of the name in the Select List on the career of the affected officer. As earlier stated, the Selection Board is required to decide the question of inclusion of the names of the eligible officers in the Select List on the basis of consideration and assessment of the respective record of each of such officers and it has to do so fairly and impartially, although the process may not be quasi-judicial. In order to ensure that this function has been properly performed, insistence on the recording of reasons would be the prime safeguard, particularly when an eligible officer is found not suitable, although he might have held for a number of years in the State Forest Service a post which has since been declared as a cadre post The Commission will also be able to perform its function satisfactorily provided it has before it not only the service record of each of such officers but also the reasons recorded by the Selection Board for the non inclusion of his name in the Select List. Such reasons would enable the Commission to decide for itself whether the record was properly assessed and whether the relevant test was properly applied by the Selection Board which is the primary body to decide the question of inclusion in the Select List. Such reasons would enable the Commission to decide for itself whether the record was properly assessed and whether the relevant test was properly applied by the Selection Board which is the primary body to decide the question of inclusion in the Select List. Without the reasons and merely with the names of the selected officers and the records of the selected and non selected officers before it, the Commission would be seriously handicapped in making its recommendations and the very process of initial selection by the Selection Board would become a meaningless exercise, for the Commission will have to then apply its mind afresh to the whole question as if it were itself making the selection for the first time. The non inclusion of name in the Select List adversely affects the concerned officer who, as earlier pointed out, might have held a cadre post for a number of years and who, as a consequence of the non-selection, might have, in a given contingency, to be reverted from such post. On a consideration of all these factors including the language of Regulation 5 in its various clauses, we are of the view that it is the mandatory requirement of Regulation 5 that the Selection Board must state reasons for the non-inclusion of an eligible officer of the State Forest Service in the Select List. 21. It was strenuously contended on behalf of the respondents, however, that sub-regulation (1) which deals with the adjudgment of suitability by the Selection Board does not in terms require the recording of reasons for non-inclusion in the Select List and that, therefore, no such implication could be made by reading the said sub-regulation (1) with sub-regulation (2) and that, in any case, sub regulation (2), upon a proper construction, only requires the forwarding of reasons to the Commission provided such reasons ate recorded by the Selection Board and not otherwise. We are unable to agree. As regards the first limb of this submission, the principle of construction, namely, visceribus actus, can never be lost sight of. We are unable to agree. As regards the first limb of this submission, the principle of construction, namely, visceribus actus, can never be lost sight of. It is an elementary rule of interpretation that construction of a statutory provision is to be made by reading all the parts together, that is to say, the whole provision must be read together, sub-sections in a section must be read as parts of an integral whole and as being inter-dependent, "each portion throwing light, if need be, on the rest." (See S Gurmej Singh v. Pratap Singh, A.I.R. 1960 SC 122; The State of Bihar v. Hira Lal, A.I.R. 1960 SC 47; and Madanlal Fakirchand v. Shree Changdeo Sugar Mills Lid., A.I.R. 1962 S. C 1548). Sub-regulations (1 and (2) cannot, therefore, be construed in isolation and other have to be read together to find out as to what is the true content of Regulation 5. As regards the second limb of the submission, suffice it to say that, as earlier pointed out, the words of Regulation 5 (2) (b) do not bear out what has been urged on behalf of the respondents. The words of the said sub-regulation are, "the reasons as recorded by the Board" and not "the reasons, if any, recorded by the Board". There is no reason to depart from the language of the sub-regulation and to substitute different words in the place of what has been enacted. 22. It was next urged on behalf of the respondents that the Initial Recruitment Regulations were enacted on the same day on which another set of Regulations, namely, the Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Promotion Regulations') were enacted and that both the sets of Regulations govern recruitment to the Indian Forest Service and that in interpreting one set of Regulations it would he permissible to draw upon the other set of Regulations which are cognate in nature. Regulation 5 of the Promotion Regulations, proceeded the argument, provided in sub-regulation (6) that, if in the process of selection, review or revision it was proved to supersede any member of the State Forest Service, the Selection Committee shall record its reasons for the proposed supersession; whereas there was no such mandatory requirement, so far as sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 5 of the Initial Recruitment Regulations was concerned. It was urged that a deliberate departure has been made in sub regulation (1) of Regulation 5 of the Initial Recruitment Regulations by not providing therein for the recording of reasons for non-inclusion of an eligible officer in the Select List and that, therefore, it would not be permissible to read by implication such a requirement in the said sub-regulation. We are not inclined to accept this submission. In the first place, when there is inherent evidence in the language and object and purpose of the relevant provisions of the Initial Recruitment Regulations which unmistakably leads to the conclusion that reasons for non-inclusion must be recorded, it would not be permissible, for the purpose of interpretation, to refer to some other set of Regulations which deal with a different mode of recruitment at a subsequent stage. In the next place, merely because the Promotion Regulations are more explicit on this point' it cannot be deduced as a necessary implication, for want of similar express provision in sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 5 of the Initial Recruitment Regulations, that the rule making authority intended that reasons were not required to be recorded for non-inclusion in the Select List, particularly when the provisions of sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 5 of the Initial Recruitment Regulations are kept before the Mind's eye. 23. It would thus appear that the conclusion is inevitable that it is the mandatory requirement of Regulation 5 of the Initial Recruitment Regulations that the Selection Board must record reasons for non inclusion of an eligible officer of the State Forest Service in the Select List for appointment to posts in the senior and junior scales of the Indian Forest Service. The consequence of non-recording of such reasons would be non-compliance with a mandatory statutory provision vitiating the entire process of selection (see M.L Capoor's case (supra). 24. Strong reliance vas, however, placed on behalf of the first and second respondents on the unreported decision of a Single Judge of the Kerala High Court in O. P. No. 2910 of 1972 decided on October 1, 1975. 24. Strong reliance vas, however, placed on behalf of the first and second respondents on the unreported decision of a Single Judge of the Kerala High Court in O. P. No. 2910 of 1972 decided on October 1, 1975. The said case arose out of the non-inclusion of an officer of the Kerala State Forest Service in the Select List of appointees to the State Cadre of the Indian Forest Service under the Initial Recruitment Regulations The aggrieved officer filed a writ petition in the Kerala High Court and challenged the selection of the respondents inter alia on the ground that there was no assessment on, a comparative basis of the relative merits and abilities of the petitioner and the concerned officers and that no reasons had been recorded for passing over the petitioner and for selecting the said respondents in preference to him. In the counter-affidavit filed in the said proceeding it was explained that the Special Selection Board had adjudged the suitability of the candidates on an overall performance of the officers as reflected by the confidential records. Relying on M. L. Capoor's case (supra) the petitioner in that case contended that the requirements of Regulations 5 were not complied with since reasons as required were not recorded by the Selection Board The Kerala High Court repelled this contention in the following words after referring to the relevant observations in M L. Capoor's case :- "It is to be observed that there it no such requirement (in the Rules with which we are concerned) in the instant case Being so, it would he inappropriate to import and requirement of recording of reasons for selection in this case. I have already extracted Rule 5 which is sufficient to throw light at the requirements to be observed in this case. I see no infirmity or invalidating circumstances in the selection made by the Special Selection Board." On the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition was dismissed. Now, it must be said that the decision of the Kerala High Court is on all fours and it entirely supports the contention advanced by the first and the second respondents in the present case. However, we are unable to agree with the said decision. Now, it must be said that the decision of the Kerala High Court is on all fours and it entirely supports the contention advanced by the first and the second respondents in the present case. However, we are unable to agree with the said decision. In our opinion, the Kerala High Court, with respect, erred in coming to the conclusion that there is no requirement in Regulation 5 for the recording of reasons for non-inclusion of the name in the Select List We have already dealt with this question adequately in the earlier part of this judgment and we need not reiterate the reasons already given for reaching a contrary conclusion The Kerala High Court has, with respect, not examined all the material parts of Regulation 5 together nor has it considered the various other circumstances which must be taken into account in properly construing Regulation 5. We are unable, therefore, to agree with the said decision. 25. Reliance was next placed on behalf of the first and second respondents on the decision of the Supreme Court in Parvez Qadir's case (supra) and it was urged that in the said decision the Supreme Court has considered Regulation 5 of the Initial Recruitment Regulations and it has not read into it the requirement of recording of reasons and that, therefore, it was not open to us to read such requirement into the said Regulation by implication We are unable to agree. In Parvez Qadir's case (supra) Rule 4(1) of the Recruitment Rules to the Indian Forest Service and Regulation 5 of the Initial Recruitment Regulations were challenged Regulation 5 was challenged inter alia on the ground that the provision relating to adjudgment of suitability on the basis of the confidential entries and other records was arbitrary and that criteria for selection were not sufficiently laid down. These contentions were negatived by the Supreme Court which held that the method of selection based on past performance as disclosed by the confidential records could not be held to be not the proper method for adjudging suitability and that the criteria laid down in the rules and regulations provided sufficient indication as to the norms applicable for adjudging suitability, namely, the past performance of the officer as can be gleaned from his confidential and other records if they exist in respect of that officer. It is significant to note that, though the provisions of Regulation 5 were examined in that case, they were so examined in the context of an altogether different challenge and the Supreme Court was not required to go into the question whether or not the recording of reasons for non-inclusion of the name in the Select List was a mandatory requirement of Regulation 5. Such a question was neither directly nor incidentally raised and the Supreme Court has not pronounced any opinion on the said question. We are unable to see how under such circumstances the decision in Parvez Qadir's case can be pressed into service for urging that the question agitated before us is no longer resintegra and that it is not open to us to take the view which we are inclined to do. 26. The first and the second respondents then relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 47 of 1974, decided on January 9, 1975 and urged that it was a well-settled principle that recording of reasons was not the requirement of Article 16 and that no such implication could be made. We are unable to see how the decision in question helps the concerned respondents The petitioner in that case was officiating as Assistant Commissioner of Labour and he was reverted from his officiating post to his substantive post of Labour Officer. We are unable to see how the decision in question helps the concerned respondents The petitioner in that case was officiating as Assistant Commissioner of Labour and he was reverted from his officiating post to his substantive post of Labour Officer. S. H. Sheth J., sitting singly, struck down the said order of reversion since in his view the Public Service Commission which had not approved the petitioner's continuance in the higher post had failed to give reasons why the petitioner was superseded though his juniors were allowed to continue, in reaching this conclusion, S. H. Seth J. relied upon the decision in M. L. Capoor's case (supra) which, according to him, laid down that the mandate of Article 16 would be violated if reasons were not furnished The Division Bench, in appeal, found that the decision in M. L. Capoor's case (supra) was founded on the statutory regulation which governed the said case and that it was not the ratio of the said decision that recording of reasons in the cases of supersession was the mandate of Article 16 In the present case also it is not our view that recording of reasons for the non-inclusion of the name of an eligible officer in the Select List is a requirement of Article 16-We have reached the conclusion on an interpretation of the relevant sub-regulations of Regulation 5 that such is the mandatory requirement and it is on the basis of the construction which we have placed upon the relevant statutory regulations that we propose to strike down the impugned Select List and consequential appointments for non-compliance with such mandatory requirement. It would thus appear that the Division Bench decision also cannot assist the concerned respondents. 27. It would thus appear that the Division Bench decision also cannot assist the concerned respondents. 27. The next question is as to what must be the content of the reasons which are required to be so recorded In this connection, we can do no better than cite the following passage from the decision of the Supreme Court in M. L Capoor's case (supra) :- "In the context of the effect upon the rights of aggrieved persons, as members of a public service who are entitled to just and reasonable treatment, by reason of protections conferred upon them by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which are available to them throughout their service, it was incumbent on the Selection Committee to have stated reasons in a manner which would disclose how the record of each officer superseded stood in relation to records of others who were to be preferred, particularly as this is practically 'the only remaining visible safeguard against possible injustice and arbitrariness in making selections If that had been done, facts on service records of officers considered by the Selection Committee would have been correlated to the conclusions reached. Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject-matter for a decision, whether it is purely administrative or quasi-judicial-They should reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and the conclusion reached. Only in this way can opinions or decisions recorded be shown to be manifestly just and reasonable". It is pertinent to bear in mind that these observations were made in the context of the requirement of recording of reasons under Regulation 5 (5) of the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 and similar provision contained in the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations. It is pertinent to bear in mind that these observations were made in the context of the requirement of recording of reasons under Regulation 5 (5) of the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 and similar provision contained in the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations. Both the said provisions required, like the provisions of Regulation 5 (6) of the Promotion Regulations to the Indian Forest Service referred to earlier, that in case of supersession in the process of selection, the committee shall record its reasons for the proposed supersession The question, in the case before the Supreme Court, was whether the following reason given by the Selection Committee could be said to be a reason within the meaning of Regulation 5 (5) :- "On an overall assessment, the records of these officers are not such as to justify their appointment to the Indian Administrative Service/Indian Police Service at this stage in preference to those selected". The Supreme Court was of the view that the reason given as aforesaid amounted to "rubber stamp" reasons given mechanically for supersession of each officer and that it did not amount to reasons for the proposed Supersession within the meaning of Regulation 5 (5). In this context, the Supreme Court observed :- "The most that could be said for the stock reason is that it is a general description of the process adopted in arriving at a conclusion. This apology for reasons to be recorded does not go beyond indicating a conclusion in each case that the record of the officer concerned is not such as to justify his appointment" at this stage in preference to those Selected"............... We think that it is not enough to say that preference should be given because a certain kind of process was gone through by the Selection Committee. This is all that the supposed statement of reasons amounts to. We, therefore, think that the mandatory provisions of Regulation 5 (5) were not complied with". We think that it is not enough to say that preference should be given because a certain kind of process was gone through by the Selection Committee. This is all that the supposed statement of reasons amounts to. We, therefore, think that the mandatory provisions of Regulation 5 (5) were not complied with". This decision clearly defines the content of reasons It would thus appear that the reasons which the Selection Board must record under Regulation 5 of the Initial Recruitment Regulations must disclose how the record of each officer stood, how mind was applied to the subject-matter of adjudgment of suitability and they must reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and the conclusions reached- Merely stating that, on an overall assessment, the records of the concerned officers were not such as to justify their inclusion in the Select List would not amount to reasons within the meaning of Regulation 5. Such "rubber-stamp" or "stock', reason would merely amount to a general description of the process adopted in arriving at the conclusion and it could never be treated as reasons within the meaning of Regulation 5. 28. Let us now proceed to examine in the light of the aforesaid interpretation of Regulation 5 whether its mandatory requirements have been complied with in the present case. The result of the inquiry is not far to seek, for, as earlier pointed out, the case of the concerned respondents is that the reason which weighed with the Selection Board and which was communicated to the Union Public Service Commission as per the requirement of Regulation 5 (2) (b) was that on an overall assessment of the service records of all the concerned eligible officers who were not included in the Select List the Selection Board had come to the conclusion that the service record of such officers was not such as to justify their inclusion in the Select List. It is an admitted position, as earlier stated, that nothing more was recorded or communicated. The reason as aforesaid which weighed with the Selection Board is no different from or better than the reason which weighed with the Selection Committee in M. L. Capoor's case (supra) and, following the said decision, it must be held that it could not be said to be reasons required to be recorded under Regulation 5. The reason as aforesaid which weighed with the Selection Board is no different from or better than the reason which weighed with the Selection Committee in M. L. Capoor's case (supra) and, following the said decision, it must be held that it could not be said to be reasons required to be recorded under Regulation 5. It must, therefore, be held, following the ratio of the decision in M. L Capoor's case, that there was non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Regulation 5 and that, therefore, the impugned Select List and the consequential orders of appointment made to the Gujarat Cadre of the Indian Forest Service must be quashed and set aside. 29. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned Selections to the Gujarat State Cadre of the Indian Forest Service made by the Special Selection Board at its meeting held in October 1971 and the consequential appointments made under the Notification dated January 7, 1972 issued by the Government of India, Cabinet Secretariat, Department of Personnel are quashed and set aside Rules made absolute accordingly. The first respondent shall pay the costs of this petition to the petitioner. 30. After the judgment was pronounced, an oral request was made on behalf of the first respondent that a certificate under Article 133 (I) of the Constitution of India be issued. In our opinion, the case does not involve a substantial question of law of general importance which requires to be decided by the Supreme Court. In construing the provisions of Regulation 5 of the Initial Recruitment Regulations, we have followed the well-known principles of construction and we have been guided by the decisions of the Supreme Court. Under such circumstances, it is not possible to issue a certificate under Article 133 (1). The oral request for a certificate is, therefore, rejected. 31. The next oral request made on behalf of the first respondent was that the operation of this judgment should be stayed for a period of six weeks from today in order to enable the said respondent to approach the Supreme Court under Article 136. The request is reasonable and it is accordingly granted. Petition allowed.