Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 1019
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
1. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh , vide its judgment and order dated
nd 2
22 December, 2023, allowed a writ petition presented by the State
of Andhra Pradesh, its Chief Secretary and the Principal Chief
3
Conservator of Forests by reversing the judgment and order dated
th
12 April, 2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,
4
Hyderabad Bench at Hyderabad , which was under challenge. The
5
Tribunal while allowing the appellant’s original application under
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
JATINDER KAUR
Date: 2025.08.22
13:24:23 IST
Reason:
1
High Court
2
W.P. No. 29304 of 2022
3
PCCF
4
Tribunal
5
OA/020/00628/2021
Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 had made certain
positive directions. This appeal, by special leave, registers a challenge
nd 6
to the said judgment and order dated 22 December, 2023 .
2. The basic facts are not in dispute. The appellant was appointed as
7 th
Forest Range Officer on 6 April, 2006. He was promoted as
8 th
Assistant Conservator of Forests on 30 August, 2020 and has 14
th
years’ service left. On 11 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
9
Service in terms of the Indian Forest Service (Appointment by
10
Promotion) Regulations, 1966 , should officers in the categories of
11
Deputy Conservator of Forests 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 considering the
FRO"s/applicants service as FRO cadre as State Forest Service for
consideration of promotion to the cadre of IFS 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 IFS and pass such other
order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in
the circumstances of the case.”
6
impugned order
7
FRO
8
ACF
9
IFoS
10
1966 Regulations
11
DCF
2
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 IFS
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
12
(Recruitment) Rules, 1966 , more particularly the
expression “State Forest Service” as defined in Rule 2(g),
12
Recruitment Rules
3
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?
(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
13
Association and a decision of a Division Bench of the High Court
for the State of Telangana in K. Shailendra Moses vs. The State
14
of Telangana 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
13
(2007) 9 SCC 369
14 th
W.P.No.23856 of 2016, decided on 6 January, 2021
4
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.
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
5
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
15
Andhra Pradesh Forest Service Rules, 1997 . 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
15
APFS Rules
6
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 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.
7
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
16
Service Commission 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 *.
16
UPSC
8
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.
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.
17
State of T.N. , where this Court sounded caution in the
following words:
17
(1975) 1 SCC 152
9
“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.
10
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 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.
23. The appeal is disposed of on the aforesaid terms without any
order for costs.
…………………..…………………J.
(DIPANKAR DATTA)
…….…….………....………………J.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
NEW DELHI.
August 22, 2025.
11