SMT J P SOWJANYA vs ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST
- Court
- Central Administrative Tribunal
1
OA.No.714/2021
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH
CIRCUIT SITTING AT VIJAYAWADA
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.020/00714/2021
ORDER RESERVED ON 24.09.2026
DATE OF ORDER: 16.10.2026
HON’BLE MR. MANISH GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON’BLE MR.VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
1. Smt JP Sowjanya, w/o Sri B Satish Chandra
Aged about 40 years, Occ. Asst Conservator of Forests
Office of the Sub-DFO, Yeleswaram.
2. Sri A Trimurthulu Reddy, S/o Sri Narayana Rao
Aged about 42 years, Occ. Asst Conservator of Forests
Office of the Sub-DFO, Narsipatnam.
3. PB Narayana Kumar, S/o Sri Venkatanarasimha Rao
Aged about 42 years; Occ. Asst Conservator of Forests (Law)
Head Office, Aranya Bhavan, Guntur.
4. T Sreenivasa Rao, S/o Sri Venkatanarasimha Rao
Aged about 56 years, Occ. Asst Conservator of Forests
Office of the Sub-DFO, Tirupathi. …..Applicants
(By Advocate: Smt. K.Parvathi)
Vs.
1. Union of India rep by The Secretary to Government
Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate change (MoEFCC)
Indira Paryavaran Bhavan, Jorbagh Road, New Delhi.
2. The Secretary, Union Public Service Commission (UPSC)
Dholpur House, Shajahan Road, New Delhi.
3. The State of Andhra Pradesh rep by The Chief Secretary
General Administration Department, Secretariat
Velagapudi, Amaravathi.
4. The Principal Secretary/Secretary, Environment
Forest Science and Technology Department
Secretariat Building, Velagapudi, Amaravathi.
5. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests & Head of Forest Force
PANDIRLAP
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad,
O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative
Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, ST=Telangana, E=needhee.2@
gmail.com, postalCode=500004, serialNumber=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4
1813a4eb590082, street=No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA
Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad, telephoneNumber=
ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa
a0a510742c22
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.26 16:42:24+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
ALLI
SANDHYA
2
OA.No.714/2021
Aranya Bhavan, K.M.Munshi Road
Nagarampalem, Guntur.
6. B.Vijay Kumar, S/o.B.Nallaiah
Aged about 53 years, Occ: Dy.Conservator of Forests
Director Eco-Tourism, AP Forest Development Corp. Ltd.
Guntur, AP. ….Respondents
(By Advocates: Smt.K.Rajitha, Sr.PC for CG, Sri S.V.Ramana & Sri K.Ajay
Kumar)
*
PANDIRLAP
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad,
O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative
Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, ST=Telangana, E=needhee.2@
gmail.com, postalCode=500004, serialNumber=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4
1813a4eb590082, street=No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA
Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad, telephoneNumber=
ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa
a0a510742c22
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.26 16:42:24+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
ALLI
SANDHYA
3
OA.No.714/2021
O R D E R
PER:HON’BLEMR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
1. The present Original Application has been filed by the applicants under Section
19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
i. Declare the action of the Respondents in not including the
names of the Applicants in the zone of consideration for being
considered for being appointment by promotion to the Indian
Forest Services for the select list years, 2013 to 2018, as being
arbitrary, bad, illegal, contrary to the Indian Forest Service
(Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966 and thereby
violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India;
ii. Consequently, direct the Respondents to include the name of the
Applicants in the zone of consideration for the select list years
2013 to 2018 so as to be subjected to the selection process as
per the Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion)
Regulations and promote the Applicants to the Service and
release all the consequential benefits like seniority and
monetary and pass such other and further order or orders as
are deemed fit and proper by this Hon'ble Tribunal under the
circumstances of the case.
2. Applicants have been serving as Asst.Conservator of Forests in the State of
st
Andhra Pradesh. The 1 applicant was recruited as a Forest Range Officer
(FRO, in short), having been selected as such by the Andhra Pradesh Public
Service Commission (APPSC). After completion of her training, she was given
regular posting in 2008. Thereafter, she was promoted as Asst.Conservator of
nd
Forest for the panel year 2019-20. The 2 applicant came through the same
selection and worked as FRO till the year 2018. He cleared the selection process
and was directly recruited as Asst.Conservator of Forests and has been working
rd
as such. The 3 applicant, who was recruited as an FRO, in pursuance of the
notification issued in 2004, was also promoted as Asst.Conservator of Forests
th
against the panel year 2019-20. The 4 applicant was selected as a
PANDIRLAP
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad,
O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative
Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, ST=Telangana, E=needhee.2@
gmail.com, postalCode=500004, serialNumber=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4
1813a4eb590082, street=No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA
Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad, telephoneNumber=
ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa
a0a510742c22
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.26 16:42:24+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
ALLI
SANDHYA
4
OA.No.714/2021
Draughtsman in Grade II in the year 1986 and, subsequently, underwent
conversion as a Forest Range Officer and, on promotion against the 2019-20
panel, he was posted as Asst.Conservator of Forests. All the four applicants
have taken the plea as follows:
“e) The All India Services Act contemplates constitute of All
India Services. Section 3 thereof vests in the Central Government
power to make rules for appointment and other allied matters to
the All India Services. Exercising the powers vested in the Central
Government conferred by Section 3(1) of the All India Services
Act, 1951 and in consultation with the State Governments, the
Indian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1966 were framed.
Rule 8 thereof contemplates recruitment by promotion from
amongst the substantive members of the State Forest Service as a
method of entry into the Indian Forest Service. Rule 9 prescribes
that the number of persons recruited under Rule 8 shall not exceed
33 1/3 % of the cadre strength.
f) The Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion)
Regulations, 1966 was made in pursuance of sub-rule 1 of Rule 8
of the Indian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1966.
Regulation 5 talks of preparation of a list of suitable officers. As
per the said regulation, the Selection Committee shall meet
ordinarily every year and prepare a list of such members of the
State Forest Service as are held by them to be suitable for
promotion to the service. (emphasis supplied)
g) The proviso to Explanation 3 of the said regulation would
disentitle a member of the State Forest Service who has attained
st
the age of 54 on the 1 day of January to be ineligible for
consideration. The requirement for a member of State service to
be considered is that one must have completed not less than 8
years of continuous service in posts included in the State Forest
PANDIRLAP
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad,
O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative
Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, ST=Telangana, E=needhee.2@
gmail.com, postalCode=500004, serialNumber=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4
1813a4eb590082, street=No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA
Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad, telephoneNumber=
ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa
a0a510742c22
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.26 16:42:24+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
ALLI
SANDHYA
5
OA.No.714/2021
Service, Though Applicant No. 4 is present 56 years, he has
joined the issue with the other Applicants as the question of
considering his case would be for the vacancies of the year 2013
st
and the 1 of January of the said year would be the crucial date for
determining the eligibility, he would be eligible for being included
in the zone of consideration, considered and promoted if found
suitable by the Selection Committee. (emphasis supplied)
h) Exercising the power conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of
the Constitution of India, the Governor has framed Andhra
Pradesh State Forest Service Rules and notified the same through
GO. Ms. No. 154, Environment Forests Science and Technology
(For-V) dated 18.11.1997. Rule 2 thereof details the constitution
of the service. It classifies the service as Class A, B and C. Class
A are posts connected with Forestry and are having Gazetted
status.
i) As per the Recruitment Rules and Regulations, the Selection
Committee has to meet ordinarily every year for preparing a select
list for appointment by promotion to IFOS. However, in cases
where vacancies are available but still the Committee could not
meet, year-wise select lists have to be made as per the extant rules
and regulations. The filling up of vacancies that fall to promotion
quota is not happening on a regular basis and therefore, it
becomes incumbent for preparation of year-wise select lists
almost on a regular basis.
j) The selections for 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018
could not take place in spite of there being about 14 vacancies for
all the Six years. With the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act
coming into force from 2.6.2014, the number of vacancies which
fall to the undivided Andhra Pradesh is 6 for 2013 and to the
residual Andhra Pradesh is 2 for 2014, Nil for 2015 & 2016, 4 for
PANDIRLAP
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad,
O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative
Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, ST=Telangana, E=needhee.2@
gmail.com, postalCode=500004, serialNumber=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4
1813a4eb590082, street=No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA
Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad, telephoneNumber=
ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa
a0a510742c22
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.26 16:42:24+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
ALLI
SANDHYA
6
OA.No.714/2021
2017 and 2 for 2018. Steps have been initiated for filling up the
vacancies.
k) Traditionally, the Deputy Conservators of Forests and Asst
Conservators of Forests are only coming within the zone of
consideration as it is necessary that the zone of consideration is to
be determined in the ratio of 1:3 as per rules. It is for the first time
that there are only 5 Deputy Conservators of Forests who are
eligible for consideration. None of the Asst Conservators of
Forests have attained their eligibility in as much as the direct
recruitment to the said posts took place only in 2010 and 2012.
Officers so appointed in these years would not be eligible for
consideration as they admittedly did not put in the requisite 8
years of minimum service in the posts included in the State Forest
Service.
l) A similar situation of there being no eligible Deputy
Conservators and Asst Conservators of Forests, occurred in other
States, for instance in Kerala where even Forest Range Officers
were included in the zone of consideration and eventually selected
to the Indian Forest Service. The Applicants have been informed
by their seniors that Forest Range Officers who were promoted to
IFOS in Kerala State were also trained along with them at
Dehradun.
m) However, the State of Andhra Pradesh does not seem to be
emulating their example in as much as the Forest Range Officers
are not being included in the zone of consideration in spite of the
fact that they are in State Forest Service, connected with Forestry
and having a Gazetted status. The Appointment by Promotion
Regulations would only talk of the Committee to prepare the list
of such members of the State Forest Service as held suitable by
them.
PANDIRLAP
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad,
O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative
Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, ST=Telangana, E=needhee.2@
gmail.com, postalCode=500004, serialNumber=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4
1813a4eb590082, street=No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA
Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad, telephoneNumber=
ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa
a0a510742c22
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.26 16:42:24+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
ALLI
SANDHYA
7
OA.No.714/2021
n) From the reading of the Andhra Pradesh State Forest Service
Rules, it is more than evident that the Applicants are State Forest
Service Officers and the notification calling for recruitment
confirms that they are having a Gazetted status. In the light of this,
they have a Fundamental Right to be considered. However, this
right of the applicants is being denied by not including them in the
list for consideration by the Selection Committee constituted
under Regulation 3 of the Indian Forest Service (Appointment by
Promotion) Regulations, 1966.
o) The Applicants are constrained to question the correctness and
legality of the denial of their Fundamental Right to be considered
for being promoted to IFOS.”
3. Main grounds for relief advanced by the applicants are as follows:
i. The details of the Recruitment Rules, Appointment by Promotion
Regulations to the IFOS as also the Andhra Pradesh Forest Service
Rules make it very clear that a Forest Range Officer, with 8 years of
service in substantive capacity, would also have a right to be included
in the zone of consideration and considered for appointment by
promotion to IFoS. Denial of the same for no valid or justifiable reason
would render the action arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of
the Constitution of India and, hence, liable to be interfered with.
ii. That Forest Range Officers have been considered in other States and
appointed to the Indian Forest Service itself is an indication that the
Central Government has not considered these officers to be ineligible
for being considered and eventually appointed to the Service. This
aspect, having not been considered by the Respondents, warrants grant
PANDIRLAP
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad,
O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative
Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, ST=Telangana, E=needhee.2@
gmail.com, postalCode=500004, serialNumber=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4
1813a4eb590082, street=No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA
Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad, telephoneNumber=
ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa
a0a510742c22
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.26 16:42:24+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
ALLI
SANDHYA
8
OA.No.714/2021
of the relief(s) prayed for by the Applicants in the present Original
Application.
iii. Since there are candidates who answer the description of the 'State
Forest Service (SFS) Officer' and have put in the requisite service of 8
years and have been holding the post substantively, with Gazetted
status, denying their cases for consideration would also not serve the
public interest. When the zone of consideration is wider and more
number of officers are available for consideration, better merit can be
preferred and the best among the officers available and eligible can be
picked up.
iv. The impugned action of excluding the applicants from the zone of
consideration for IFoS is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the principles
of law. Hence, the OA.
4. Considering the submission of the applicants that their names had been left out
of the zone of consideration for promotion to the Indian Forest Service, vide
daily order, dt.26.10.2021, stay had been granted by this Tribunal, as follows:
“After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, conduct of
DPC is stayed till the reply is filed.”
5. Respondents have filed separate reply statements in the matter. The main thrust
being that only State Forest Service officers are eligible for consideration for
promotion into IFoS, and not the Forest Range Officers. Therefore, the
applicants cannot claim consideration for promotion into IFoS. Further, as per
the existing norms, the State Forest Service consists of officers of the ranks of
Deputy Conservator of Forests and Assistant Conservator of Forests only.
Learned counsel for the Respondents prayed to permit the concerned authorities
PANDIRLAP
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad,
O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative
Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, ST=Telangana, E=needhee.2@
gmail.com, postalCode=500004, serialNumber=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4
1813a4eb590082, street=No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA
Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad, telephoneNumber=
ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa
a0a510742c22
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.26 16:42:24+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
ALLI
SANDHYA
9
OA.No.714/2021
to continue with the selection process for filling up of the vacancies in the
Indian Forest Service for the State Forest Officers by vacating the interim order,
dt. 26.10.2021, of this Tribunal. The applicant's counsel submitted that, in a
similar case, OA No.628/2021 , this Tribunal had allowed the OA on
12.04.2022. The operative portion of the said OA is reproduced below:
"XIV. In view of the aforesaid, the OA not only succeeds, but fully
succeeds. Consequently, respondents are directed to treat the FROs
as SFS officers and consider appointment of applicant to IFOS on
promotion, provided he is otherwise eligible against vacancies of the
appropriate panel year."
The above order of this Tribunal was challenged before the Hon'ble HIgh Court
of A.P., vide W.P. No.29304 of 2022 . The Hon'ble High Court, vide interim
order, dt. 14.12.2022, suspended the order of this Tribunal as under:
"xxx. This Tribunal on erroneous appreciation of rules allowed the
Original Application, by declaring that the post of Forest Range
Officer is eligible to be included in the panel. The impugned order
has far reaching consequences and the post of Forest Range Officer
is not approved by the Central Government as required under Rule
2(g) of the Indian Forest Service(Recruitment) Rules, 1966 and
hence, the cases of Forest Range Officers are not entitled to be
included in the panel for the purpose of promotion/conferment of
Indian Forest Service. The issues raised in these writ petitions needs
to be adjudicated finally.
Pending adjudication of the issues, there shall be an interim
suspension of the impugned order passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad OA.No.020/00628/2021 dated
12.04.2022."
Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and, in view of the above
order of the Hon'ble High Court, the interim order granted by this Tribunal on
26.10.2021, staying the conduct of DPC, was vacated on 16.02.2023.
6. Respondent Nos.3, 4 & 5 have filed identical replies to this OA wherein their
stand is that -
PANDIRLAP
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad,
O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative
Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, ST=Telangana, E=needhee.2@
gmail.com, postalCode=500004, serialNumber=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4
1813a4eb590082, street=No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA
Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad, telephoneNumber=
ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa
a0a510742c22
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.26 16:42:24+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
ALLI
SANDHYA
10
OA.No.714/2021
i. The applicants have not exhausted the alternate remedies available to
them before approaching this Tribunal, as they have not addressed the
State Government (or) Government of India with a request to consider
the case of inclusion of Forest Range Officers for promotion to the
IFOS cadre.
ii. The applicants have given their service particulars and all of them are
working as Assistant Conservator of Forests and are claiming to be
considered for inclusion in the zone of consideration for promotion to
the Indian Forest Service duly taking into account the service rendered
in the category of Forest Range Officers.
iii. At present, the State Government is furnishing the list of Deputy
Conservators of Forests and Assistant Conservators of Forests being
the feeder category of posts for promotion to the Indian Forest Service.
There is no provision for Forest Range Officers to be included in the
State Forest Service as per clause (2)(g) of the Indian Forest Service
(Recruitment) Rules, 1966.
iv. The post of Forest Range Officer was made as Gazetted, vide
G.O.Ms.No.188, Energy, Forests, Environment, Science & Technology
(For.IV) Department, dated 09.09.1993. Prior to issue of this order, the
post of Forest Range Officer was (non-Gazetted) under Category 1 of
Class-I of the A.P. Forest Subordinates Service Rules, 1986, issued in
G.O.Ms.No.497, Forests, Animal Husbandry & Fisheries Department,
dated 04.12.1986. In the Andhra Pradesh Forest Service Rules, 1997,
issued vide G.O.Ms.No.154, Environment, Forests & Science &
Technology (For.V) Department, dated 18.11.1997, the post of Forest
PANDIRLAP
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad,
O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative
Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, ST=Telangana, E=needhee.2@
gmail.com, postalCode=500004, serialNumber=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4
1813a4eb590082, street=No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA
Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad, telephoneNumber=
ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa
a0a510742c22
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.26 16:42:24+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
ALLI
SANDHYA
11
OA.No.714/2021
Range Officer was included under Category-3, Class-A of the Andhra
Pradesh Forest Service. The Forest Range Officer, though recognized
in the Gazetted Category, cannot be considered for inclusion in the
zone of consideration for promotion to the Indian Forest Service, as the
existing instructions do not provide for the same. Moreover, as per the
Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organization of Local Cadres
and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975, the post of Forest
Range Officer is a local cadre post in each Zone of the State of Andhra
Pradesh, whereas the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests is a State
Cadre Gazetted post.
v. Further, the amendment to G.O.Ms.No.154, Environment, Forests,
Science & Technology (For.V) Department, dated 18.11.1997, brought
out in G.O.Ms.No.159, Environment, Forests, Science & Technology
(For.V) Department, dated 08.12.2008, also clearly provides for
revised Entrance and Training Rules, separately for State Forest
Service and Forest Range Officers. This further establishes that the
post of Forest Range Officer is not a part of the State Forest Service at
all and is a separate category. Therefore, Forest Range Officer is not
eligible for consideration for promotion to the IFoS, as per the extant
rules.
vi. It is further submitted that the applicants have narrated the availability
of vacancies in the IFoS cadre for the State of Andhra Pradesh. Since
only State Forest Service (SFS) officers are eligible for consideration
of promotion to the IFoS, and not the Forest Range Officers, the
applicants cannot claim consideration for promotion into IFoS, as that
PANDIRLAP
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad,
O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative
Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, ST=Telangana, E=needhee.2@
gmail.com, postalCode=500004, serialNumber=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4
1813a4eb590082, street=No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA
Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad, telephoneNumber=
ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa
a0a510742c22
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.26 16:42:24+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
ALLI
SANDHYA
12
OA.No.714/2021
would be ultra vires . As per the existing norms, as contained in Rule-
10 of the A.P. Forest Code, Vol.-I and item no.1 of Appendex-1 of the
A.P. Forest Code Vol.-II, the State Forest Service consists of Deputy
Conservator of Forests and Assistant Conservator of Forests only.
vii. The applicants have mentioned that Forest Range Officers in the State
of Kerala have been considered and selected on promotion to the
Indian Forest Service, but they have not indicated the details thereof.
In Ashok Kumar Gupta vs State of UP (1980) 3 SCC 625 , it was ruled
that ‘right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right and no
employee will remain unconsidered provided he is eligible for the
post.’ Forest Range Officers are not eligible for consideration for
promotion since they do not belong to the State Forest Service. As
such, there is no violation of any fundamental right in the instant case.
viii. It is also submitted that the applicants have been promoted to the
category of Assistant Conservator of Forests and are eligible to be
st rd th
considered in the same cadre. The 1 , 3 and 4 applicants have been
promoted in the panel year 2019-20 to the category of Assistant
Conservator of Forests and they have to put in the minimum service of
(8) years in substantive post, for being eligible to be considered for
nd
promotion to IFoS. The 2 applicant, who worked as Forest Range
Officer up to the year 2018, got selected by Direct Recruitment to the
post of Assistant Conservator of Forests and he has also to put in
minimum service of (8) years in substantive post for being considered
eligible for promotion as above.
PANDIRLAP
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad,
O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative
Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, ST=Telangana, E=needhee.2@
gmail.com, postalCode=500004, serialNumber=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4
1813a4eb590082, street=No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA
Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad, telephoneNumber=
ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa
a0a510742c22
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.26 16:42:24+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
ALLI
SANDHYA
13
OA.No.714/2021
7. It is submitted on behalf of Respondent No.1/Min. of Environment, Forests
and Climate Change (MoEFCC), that promotions from the State Forest
Services (SFS) to the Indian Forest Services are governed by the provisions
of the IFoS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966. The service
records of the officers of the State Forest Services (SFS) are maintained by
the State Government. To determine the eligibility of the State Forest
officers for promotion to IFoS comes under the purview of the State
Government and the UPSC. The Ministry of Environment, Forest and
Climate Change has no role to play with regard to determining the
eligibility of the SFS officers for Promotion to the IFoS. The role of the
MoEF&CC is limited to issuing of appointment notification, based on the
recommendation of the Selection Committee Meeting (SCM) convened and
chaired by the UPSC.
8. Respondent No.6 filed MA.240/2022, and got impleaded as a respondents
and prayed for getting the stay on the entire selection from 2013 onwards
vacated in order to enable him to be considered for the select year 2013
along with other eligible SFS officials in the zone of consideration, since
promotion to IFoS of SFS officers of Andhra Pradesh had been held up
th
from 2013 onwards. The 6 Respondent, B.Vijaya Kumar, who was
selected as Asst. Conservator of Forest in the Andhra Pradesh State Forest
Service in the year 1993, was, subsequently promoted as Dy.Conservator of
Forests in the year 2011. His promotion had got affected because of the
delay in the entire process, even though he was much senior to the
applicants herein.
PANDIRLAP
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad,
O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative
Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, ST=Telangana, E=needhee.2@
gmail.com, postalCode=500004, serialNumber=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4
1813a4eb590082, street=No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA
Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad, telephoneNumber=
ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa
a0a510742c22
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.26 16:42:24+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
ALLI
SANDHYA
14
OA.No.714/2021
9. Heard both the parties and perused the materials placed on record.
10. In a similar matter, OA.No.628/2021 was filed by Forest Range Officers
before this Tribunal with a prayer to declare them as State Forest Service
officers. The order, dt.12.04.2022, passed by this Tribunal in the said OA
was suspended, vide interim order, dt.14.12.2022, in WP.No.29304/2022 by
the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Through its detailed order,
dt.22.12.2023, the High Court reversed the order of this Tribunal, wherein it
was held as follows:
“80. In our view, in the present case, the post of Forest Range Officer does
not qualify under the State Forest Service within the meaning of Rule 2 (g) (i)
of the Indian Forests Service (Recruitment) Rules 1966. Consequently, we are
of the considered view that the principle of law as laid down in B. Amrutha
Lakshmi (supra) cannot be applied to the facts of the present case in favour of
the respondent, as they do not fall within the zone of consideration.
81. Thus considered. We hold that,
(1) the Forest Range Officer service, is not a „State Forest Service‟ within
the meaning of Rule 2 (g) (i) of the Indian Forest Service (Recruitment)
Rules 1966; as the same has not been approved by the Central
Government, in consultation with the State Government for the purposes of
the Indian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules 1966, which approval is
must;
(2) the Forest Range Officer of Andhra Pradesh Forest Service do not fall
in the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Indian Forest
Service under the Indian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules 1966 and the
Regulations 1966;
(3) the impugned judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal cannot
legally be sustained.
82. In the result, the impugned Order of the Tribunal is quashed. The Writ
Petition is allowed.”
11. However, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicants, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No.11000 of 2025, arising out of
PANDIRLAP
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad,
O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative
Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, ST=Telangana, E=needhee.2@
gmail.com, postalCode=500004, serialNumber=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4
1813a4eb590082, street=No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA
Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad, telephoneNumber=
ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa
a0a510742c22
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.26 16:42:24+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
ALLI
SANDHYA
15
OA.No.714/2021
SLP (C) No.1253 of 2024, vide order, dt.22.08.2025, has set aside the order
of the High Court of AP in Writ Petition No.29304 of 2022, supra. On
13.01.2026, Review Petition (C) No.3193 of 2025 in Civil Appeal No.11000
of 2025 filed by the Appellant in the Civil Appeal seeking review of the
order, dt.22.08.2025, was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The
Supreme Court order is reproduced below:
“IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2025
[ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NO.1253 OF 2024]
P.MARUTHI PRASADA RAO …APPELLANT
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. …RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
DIPANKAR DATTA J.
1. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh1, vide its judgment and order dated
22nd December, 2023, allowed a writ petition presented by the State of
Andhra Pradesh, its Chief Secretary and the Principal Chief
Conservator of Forests by reversing the judgment and order dated 12th
April, 2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad
Bench at Hyderabad, which was under challenge. The Tribunal while
allowing the appellant’s original application under Section 19 of the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 had made certain positive
directions. This appeal, by special leave, registers a challenge to the
said judgment and order dated 22nd December, 2023.
2. The basic facts are not in dispute. The appellant was appointed as
th
Forest Range Officer on 6 April, 2006. He was promoted as Assistant
Conservator of Forests on 30th August, 2020 and has 14 years’ service
left. On 11th January, 2021, the appellant addressed a representation
to the PCCF urging that the FROs be considered as “State Forest
Service Officers” and to consider the FROs when a list of suitable
officers is prepared for appointment in the Indian Forest Service in
terms of the Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion)
Regulations, 196610, should officers in the categories of Deputy
Conservator of Forests11 and ACFs be not available in a particular
year. The inaction of the PCCF to consider such representation
prompted the appellant to approach the Tribunal claiming inter alia the
following relief:
“It is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal be
pleased to declare the action of the Respondents in not
PANDIRLAP
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad,
O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative
Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, ST=Telangana, E=needhee.2@
gmail.com, postalCode=500004, serialNumber=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4
1813a4eb590082, street=No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA
Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad, telephoneNumber=
ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa
a0a510742c22
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.26 16:42:24+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
ALLI
SANDHYA
16
OA.No.714/2021
considering the FRO"s/applicants service as FRO cadre as
State Forest Service for consideration of promotion to the cadre
of IFOS as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art.14 and 16 of
the Constitution of India and consequentially direct the
respondents to consider the FRO's / applicants service as FRO
cadre as State Forest Service for consideration of promotion to
the cadre of IFOS and pass such other order or orders as this
Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances
of the case.”
As noted above, the Tribunal allowed the appellant’s original
application. The operative part of the Tribunal’s order reads as
follows:
“By not considering the case of the applicant though he is
eligible as per RR-1966 and the 1966 Regulation on par with
ACF/DCF is violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution.
The applicant coming under SFS, for reasons expounded in
paras supra, has thus been discriminated. Therefore, the
averment of the respondents that Articles 14 & 16 of the
Constitution have not been violated does not have the force of
logic.
In view of the aforesaid, the OA not only succeeds, but fully
succeeds. Consequently, respondents are directed to treat the
FROs as SFS officers and consider appointment of applicant to
IFOS on promotion, provided he is otherwise eligible against
vacancies of the appropriate panel year. Time allowed to
implement the judgment is 6 months from the date of receipt of
this judgment. The time granted is 6 months since the Ld.
Counsel for the applicants has submitted that the bifurcation of
the posts in SFS between the States of A.P & Telangana is still
being deliberated.”
The impugned order has set aside the aforesaid order.
3. We have given a patient hearing to Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned senior
counsel for the appellant, Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned
senior counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 (writ petitioners before the
High Court) and Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor
General for the respondent no. 4 (Union of India).
4. The questions that arise for our decision are:
(i) Having regard to the provisions of the Indian Forest Service
(Recruitment) Rules, 196612, more particularly the expression
“State Forest Service” as defined in Rule 2(g), whether any
service in a State connected with forestry having members of
gazetted status is required to be approved by the Central
Government in consultation with the State Government or is
the approval of the Central Government relatable to and
required in respect of a post in the State Forest Service?
PANDIRLAP
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad,
O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative
Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, ST=Telangana, E=needhee.2@
gmail.com, postalCode=500004, serialNumber=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4
1813a4eb590082, street=No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA
Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad, telephoneNumber=
ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa
a0a510742c22
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.26 16:42:24+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
ALLI
SANDHYA
17
OA.No.714/2021
(ii) If we answer that approval is relatable to the service and not
post, what relief is the appellant entitled to on facts and in the
circumstances?
5. We note that the High Court upon its understanding of Rule 2(g)(i) of
the Recruitment Rules as well as on consideration of the decision of this
Court in Gopal Singh vs. State Cadre Forest Officer's Association13
and a decision of a Division Bench of the High Court for the State of
Telangana in K. Shailendra Moses vs. The State of Telangana14 was of
the view that the posts included in the State Forest Services have to be
approved under Rule 2(g)(i) of the Recruitment Rules and that the post
of FRO is not a service approved by the Central Government for the
purposes of the Recruitment Rules or the 1966 Regulations for
appointment by promotion to IFoS. Accordingly, it was concluded by
the High Court that:
“(1) the Forest Range Officer service, is not a 'State Forest
Service' within the meaning of Rule 2(g)(i) of the Indian Forest
Service (Recruitment) Rules 1966; as the same has not been
approved by the Central Government, in consultation with the
State Government for the purposes of the Indian Forest Service
(Recruitment) Rules 1966, which approval is must; (2) the Forest
Range Officer of Andhra Pradesh Forest Service do not fall in
the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Indian
Forest Service under the Indian Forest Service (Recruitment)
Rules 1966 and the Regulation 1966; (3) the impugned judgment
of the Central Administrative Tribunal cannot legally be
sustained.”
6. Since we are concerned in this appeal with the meaning of “State
Forest Service” as defined by Rule 2(g) of the Recruitment Rules, it is
considered apt to reproduce the same hereinbelow together with Rules
3 and 4 providing for ‘Constitution of the Service’ and the’ Method of
Recruitment to such Service’. The same read thus:
2. Definitions.
(g) “State Forest Service” means
(i) any such service in a State, being a service connected with
forestry and the members thereof having gazetted status, as the
Central Government may, in consultation with the State
Government, approve for the purpose of these rules:
or
(ii) Omitted.
3. Constitution of the Service. - (1) The Service shall consist of
the persons recruited to the Service in accordance with the
provisions of these rules.
4. Method of recruitment to the Service. - (1) Omitted.
PANDIRLAP
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad,
O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative
Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, ST=Telangana, E=needhee.2@
gmail.com, postalCode=500004, serialNumber=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4
1813a4eb590082, street=No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA
Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad, telephoneNumber=
ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa
a0a510742c22
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.26 16:42:24+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
ALLI
SANDHYA
18
OA.No.714/2021
4(2) [ ] Recruitment to the service shall be by the following
methods, namely
(a) by a competitive examination:
(aa) Omitted.
(b) by promotion of substantive members of the State Forest
Service,
7. Parties are ad idem that Gopal Singh (supra) had interpreted Rule
2(g)(ii) of the Recruitment Rules, which does not fall for consideration
here. Even otherwise, clause (ii) of Rule 2(g) has since been omitted.
Hence, we do not consider it necessary to refer to such decision for the
purpose of ascertaining the meaning of “State Forest Service”.
8. What appears on a plain reading of Rule 2(g) [after omission of clause
(ii)] is that any service in a State, which is connected with forestry and
the members whereof have gazetted status, would constitute the ‘State
Forest Service’ subject to approval by the Central Government in
consultation with the State Government for the purpose of ‘these rules’,
i.e., the Recruitment Rules.
9. Our attention has been drawn by Mr. Jayant Bhushan to the Andhra
Pradesh Forest Service Rules, 199715. In terms of Rule 2 thereof, the
Andhra Pradesh Forest Service consists of multiple categories of posts
forming part of Classes A, B and C. Class A is comprised of categories
1, 2 and 3 and we find, inter alia, the post of ACF and Range Officer to
be included in categories 2 and 3, respectively. It has not been disputed
before us that those included in Class A, Categories 1, 2 and 3, are
having gazetted status.
10. Juxtaposing the APFS Rules with the Recruitment Rules, the
conclusion is irresistible that the post of FRO is included in the Andhra
Pradesh Forest Service and members of such service having gazetted
status would count as members of the State Forest Service, i.e., the
Andhra Pradesh Forest Service, provided such service has been
approved by the Central Government in consultation with the State
Government for the purpose of the Recruitment Rules.
11. We record, Ms. Bhati did not dispute that approval of the Central
Government which is referred to in Rule 2(g) relates to service and not
post.
12. No document had been produced before us either by the appellant or
the respondents 1 to 3 to show that the Andhra Pradesh Forest Service,
which is undoubtedly connected with forestry and have members of
gazetted status in such service belonging to Class A, has been approved
by the Central Government in consultation with the State Government.
We turned to Ms. Bhati to throw light on this aspect. Her submission
has been that no specific approval could be found but having regard to
PANDIRLAP
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad,
O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative
Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, ST=Telangana, E=needhee.2@
gmail.com, postalCode=500004, serialNumber=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4
1813a4eb590082, street=No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA
Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad, telephoneNumber=
ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa
a0a510742c22
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.26 16:42:24+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
ALLI
SANDHYA
19
OA.No.714/2021
the turn of events over the years, an implied approval of the service
may be inferred.
13. This being the position, both factual and legal, we answer the first
question formulated in paragraph 4 by declaring that members of
Class A of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Service, including those in
categories 2 and 3, are members of the State Forest Service if they
have been substantively appointed. As a sequitur, we hold that they
are eligible for promotion to the IFoS in accordance with the
Recruitment Rules.
14. We now move on to answer the second question.
15. Mr. Sankarnarayanan, though conceded before us that there is no legal
bar for consideration of the candidature of the appellant for promotion
to the IFoS, it was asserted that the appellant certainly did not / does
not have any legal entitlement to be considered for promotion in
respect of the processes that have been undertaken till now.
16. Mr. Sankarnarayanan submitted that presently in the State of Andhra
Pradesh, there are 295 FROs, 62 ACFs and 33 DCFs and the number
of vacancies under consideration of the Union Public Service
Commission16 for recruitment is only 11. Referring to the 1966
Regulations, he submitted that those members having completed not
less than 8 years of continuous service would be considered for
inclusion in the list in terms of Rule 5(2) reading as follows:
5(2) The Committee shall consider for inclusion to the said
list, the cases of members of the State Forest Services in the
order of seniority in that service of a number which is equal to
three times the number referred in sub-regulation (1).
Provided that ; *
Provided further that ; *
Provided also that the Committee shall not consider the case
of a member of the State Forest Service unless on the first day
of January of the year for which the Select List is prepared, he
is substantive in the State Forest Service and has completed
not less than eight years of continuous service (whether
officiating or substantive) in post(s) included in the State
Forest Service.
EXPLANATION 1: *
Provided also that . *
According to Mr. Sankarnarayanan, the appellant is admittedly
positioned at serial no. 8 of the list of FROs; hence, officers senior to
him being there, the appellant does not enter the zone of consideration
for promotion to the IFoS and deserve a look in ahead of such senior
officers.
PANDIRLAP
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad,
O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative
Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, ST=Telangana, E=needhee.2@
gmail.com, postalCode=500004, serialNumber=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4
1813a4eb590082, street=No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA
Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad, telephoneNumber=
ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa
a0a510742c22
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.26 16:42:24+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
ALLI
SANDHYA
20
OA.No.714/2021
17. Mr. Bhushan responded by submitting that a bare reading of the
UPSC’s affidavit would make it clear that since 2015, vacancies could
not be filled up in the absence of suitable candidates. According to him,
since the appellant has been erroneously excluded from the list of
eligible candidates owing to a clear misinterpretation of Rule 2(g)(i),
direction ought to follow to facilitate consideration of the appellant's
candidature even in respect of the vacancies that remain unfilled since
2015.
18. Mr. Sankaranarayanan reacted by submitting that although the
appellant had completed 8 years of service as FRO in 2014, he woke up
from his slumber and submitted a representation voicing his grievance
for the first time in January 2021. According to him, the appellant
should not be permitted to steal a march over his seniors.
19. This reminds us of the decision in P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of
T.N.17, where this Court sounded caution in the following words:
“2. A person aggrieved by an order of promoting a junior *
over his head should approach the Court at least within six
months or at the most a year of such promotion. It is not that
there is any period of limitation for the Courts to exercise their
powers under Article 226 nor is it that there can never be a
case where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter after the
passage of a certain length of time. But it would be a sound
and wise exercise of discretion for the Courts to refuse to
exercise their extraordinary powers under Article 226 in the
case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief
and who stand by and allow things to happen and then
approach the Court to put forward stale claims and try to
unsettle settled matters. ... ”
20. Although, before us, the appellant does not complain of any of his
juniors having been promoted ahead of him, we find sufficient
justification in the contention advanced by Mr. Sankarnarayanan that 7
officers being senior to the appellant, his case does not stand apart for
being considered side-stepping his seniors only because he is successful
in obtaining the requisite declaration from this Court on the
interpretation of 2(g) of the Recruitment Rules. Cause of action for the
appellant to be considered for promotion arose after completion of
continuous substantive appointment for eight years. Having not
ventilated his grievance before the PCCF any time before January,
2021 and having taken time to approach the Tribunal, the appellant
cannot be granted any relief in respect of past exercises undertaken for
promotion. As rightly apprehended by Mr. Bhushan, the appellant
succeeds insofar as the legal issue is concerned but without any real
relief of promotion at least at this stage.
21. We are, therefore, inclined to grant limited relief to the appellant
flowing from our answer to the first question. We, accordingly, direct
that as and when the exercise for filling up vacancies in the IFoS is
PANDIRLAP
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad,
O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative
Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, ST=Telangana, E=needhee.2@
gmail.com, postalCode=500004, serialNumber=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4
1813a4eb590082, street=No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA
Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad, telephoneNumber=
ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa
a0a510742c22
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.26 16:42:24+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
ALLI
SANDHYA
21
OA.No.714/2021
initiated afresh, the respondents would be bound to follow all the
rules relating to recruitment and consider the FROs eligible for
appointment by promotion treating the Andhra Pradesh Forest
Service as ‘State Forest Service’ as defined in Rule 2(g) of the
Recruitment Rules.
22. What remains is to set aside the impugned order. We order
accordingly.” ( emphasis supplied )
12. As the issues involved in OA.No.628/2021, WP.No.29304/2022 in the AP
High Court as well as Civil Appeal No.11000 of 2025 decided by the
Hon’ble Apex Court supra, have been identical, it is clear that the matter
before us in the present OA is no longer res integra. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court has also observed, as submitted by Respondent Nos.3 to 5, as follows:
“Having not ventilated his grievance before the PCCF any time before
January, 2021 and having taken time to approach the Tribunal, the appellant
cannot be granted any relief in respect of past exercises undertaken for
promotion.”
13. Respondent Nos.3, 4 & 5 have also pointed out that the applicants have not
exhausted the alternative remedies available to them before approaching this
Tribunal, as they have not addressed the State Government or the
Government of India with a request to consider the case of Forest Range
Officers for including them in the zone of consideration for promotion to the
IFoS cadre.
14. In the light of the above, applicants are directed to make suitable
representations before the appropriate authority, within a period of 4 (four)
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, which shall be
disposed of through a detailed and reasoned order in the light of the
observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.11000/2025,
within three months, thereafter.
PANDIRLAP
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad,
O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative
Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, ST=Telangana, E=needhee.2@
gmail.com, postalCode=500004, serialNumber=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4
1813a4eb590082, street=No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA
Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad, telephoneNumber=
ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa
a0a510742c22
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.26 16:42:24+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
ALLI
SANDHYA
22
OA.No.714/2021
15. The OA is disposed of in the above terms. The IR as well as pending MAs, if
any, stand closed. No order as to costs.
(Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi) (Manish Garg)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
16.10.2026
/ps/
PANDIRLAP
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA, L=Hyderabad,
O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative
Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, ST=Telangana, E=needhee.2@
gmail.com, postalCode=500004, serialNumber=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4
1813a4eb590082, street=No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA
Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad, telephoneNumber=
ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa
a0a510742c22
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.26 16:42:24+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
ALLI
SANDHYA