Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Augustine George Masih, Supreme Court
Treat Andhra Pradesh Forest Service As State Forest Service; Consider Forest Range Officers Eligible For Appointment By Promotion For IFoS: Supreme Court
|The Appeal filed before the Supreme Court challenged the judgment reversing the order allowing the appellant’s original application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
The Supreme Court has directed that when the exercise for filling up vacancies in the Indian Forest Service (IFoS) is initiated afresh, the Chief Secretary and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and (Head of Forest Force) should consider the Forest Range Officers (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.
The Appeal filed before the Apex Court challenged the judgment reversing the order allowing the appellant’s original application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and passing certain positive directions.
The Division Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih ordered, “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.”
Senior Advocate Jayant Bhushan represented the Appellant while Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The appellant was appointed as a Forest Range Officer (FRO) and promoted to Assistant Conservator of Forest. 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 was prepared for appointment in the Indian Forest Service in terms of the Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966, in case officers in the categories of Deputy Conservator of Forests and ACFs were not available in a particular year. The inaction of the PCCF to consider such a representation prompted the appellant to approach the Tribunal.
The Tribunal allowed the appellant’s original application and directed the respondents to treat the FROs as SFS officers and consider the appointment of the applicant to IFS on promotion, provided he was otherwise eligible against vacancies of the appropriate panel year. The impugned order set aside this direction. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the Apex Court.
Reasoning
Juxtaposing the APFS Rules with the Recruitment Rules, the Bench reached to the conclusion 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.
The Bench further took note of the absence of a document to show that the Andhra Pradesh Forest Service, which is connected with forestry and has members of gazetted status in such service belonging to Class A, has been approved by the Central Government in consultation with the State Government. “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”, it held.
The Bench found substance in the Respondent’s submission that 7 officers being senior to the appellant, his case did not stand apart for being considered side-stepping his seniors only because he was successful in obtaining the requisite declaration from the 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”, it said.
Thus, the Bench disposed of the Petition by setting aside the High Court’s order and directing that for filling up vacancies in the IFoS, the Respondent Authorities would have to consider the FROs eligible for appointment by promotion.
Cause Title: P. Maruthi Prasada Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1019)
Appearance
Appellant: Senior Advocate Jayant Bhushan, Advocates Byrapaneni Suyodhan, AOR Tatini Basu, Advocates Kumar Shashank, Obulapuram Keerthi
Respondent: Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, ASG Aishwarya Bhati, Advocates Prerna Singh, AOR Guntur Pramod Kumar, Advocates Vishal Sinha, Ruchi Kohli, Shivika Mehra, AOR Devvrat, Advocates Shivam Singh, Irul Srivastava, Harshita Sharma, Nitin Jain