Supreme Court | Class A Andhra Pradesh Forest Service Officers Held to Be State Forest Service | Forest Range Officers To Be Considered for Promotion to Indian Forest Service
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India, Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih, disposed of a civil appeal by declaring that members of Class A of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Service, including those in categories 2 and 3, constitute members of the State Forest Service if they have been substantively appointed. The Court held that such officers are eligible for promotion to the Indian Forest Service in accordance with the Indian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1966. The Court further directed that as and when the exercise for filling up vacancies in the Indian Forest Service is initiated afresh, the respondents shall follow all applicable recruitment rules and treat Forest Range Officers of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Service as members of the State Forest Service. The appeal was accordingly disposed of with the setting aside of the High Court’s impugned order.
The appellant, a serving officer in the Andhra Pradesh Forest Service, entered government service on 6 April 2006 as a Forest Range Officer (FRO). He was subsequently promoted as Assistant Conservator of Forests (ACF) on 30 August 2020. At the time of filing the application before the Tribunal, he had 14 years of service left.
On 11 January 2021, the appellant submitted a representation to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (PCCF). In this representation, he requested that Forest Range Officers be considered as "State Forest Service Officers" under the Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966. He argued that FROs should be eligible for consideration for promotion to the Indian Forest Service (IFoS) when officers in the categories of Deputy Conservator of Forests (DCF) and ACF were not available in a particular year. The inaction of the PCCF to decide on this representation prompted the appellant to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench.
Before the Tribunal, the appellant prayed for a declaration that not considering the service of FROs as part of the State Forest Service cadre for the purpose of promotion to IFoS was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He sought a direction to treat service rendered in the FRO cadre as State Forest Service for purposes of such promotion. The Tribunal, upon hearing the matter, allowed the application and directed the respondents to treat FROs as members of the State Forest Service. The Tribunal further directed that the appellant be considered for promotion to the IFoS, provided he was otherwise eligible, within six months.
The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Chief Secretary and PCCF, challenged the Tribunal’s judgment before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The High Court, by its judgment dated 22 December 2023, reversed the Tribunal’s findings. It held that the post of FRO did not form part of the State Forest Service as defined in Rule 2(g)(i) of the Indian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1966, since it had not been approved by the Central Government in consultation with the State Government. The High Court concluded that FROs did not fall within the zone of consideration for promotion to the IFoS. It thus set aside the Tribunal’s order.
Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme Court by way of special leave. The matter was heard with appearances by Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned senior counsel for the appellant; Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned senior counsel for the respondents representing the State of Andhra Pradesh; and Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor General representing the Union of India.
The Court identified two key questions for determination. First, whether approval under Rule 2(g) of the Recruitment Rules related to the entire service connected with forestry having gazetted status, or only to specific posts. Second, if such approval related to service, what relief the appellant would be entitled to.
The appellant relied on the Andhra Pradesh Forest Service Rules, 1997, which classified posts into Classes A, B, and C, including ACF and FRO under Class A categories 2 and 3, both carrying gazetted status. It was contended that FROs, being gazetted officers under Class A, were members of the State Forest Service as contemplated by the Recruitment Rules. The appellant argued that exclusion of FROs was discriminatory and contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The respondents contended that the absence of express approval by the Central Government meant that FROs could not be treated as members of the State Forest Service. They argued further that the appellant had delayed in raising his grievance, having only approached the authorities in 2021 despite completing eight years of service in 2014. Additionally, they submitted that since there were several senior officers above the appellant, his case did not merit separate consideration.
The Union of India, represented by the Additional Solicitor General, submitted that no express approval of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Service by the Central Government was available. However, she suggested that implied approval might be inferred from administrative practice.
The Court first addressed the interpretation of Rule 2(g) of the Indian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1966. It stated: “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.”
On the appellant’s reliance on the Andhra Pradesh Forest Service Rules, 1997, the Court observed: “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.”
The Court noted that no document had been produced by either party to demonstrate express approval of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Service by the Central Government. However, it recorded the Union’s submission: “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.”
The Court accordingly declared: “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.”
On the question of the appellant’s individual entitlement, the Court considered the submissions of both parties. The Court noted the respondents’ contention that the appellant had delayed raising his grievance until 2021, long after he became eligible. Referring to precedent, the Court recalled: “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.”
The Court observed: “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… 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.”
The Court concluded: “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. … The appellant succeeds insofar as the legal issue is concerned but without any real relief of promotion at least at this stage.”
The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal by granting limited relief. It declared: “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.”
The Court further directed: “What remains is to set aside the impugned order. We order accordingly. The appeal is disposed of on the aforesaid terms without any order for costs.”
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Appellants: Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Senior Advocate; Mr. Byrapaneni Suyodhan, Advocate; Mr. G Arun, Advocate; Ms. Tatini Basu, AOR; Ms. Obulapuram Keerthi, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Senior Advocate; Ms. Prerna Singh, Advocate; Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, AOR; Mr. Vishal Sinha, Advocate; Mr. Devvrat, AOR; Mr. Shivam Singh, Advocate; Ms. Harshita Sharma, Advocate; Ms. Irul Srivastava, Advocate; Mr. Nitin Jain, Advocate.
Case Title: P. Maruthi Prasada Rao vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1019
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. of 2025 [arising out of SLP(C) No.1253 of 2024]
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Augustine George Masih
