SMT J P SOWJANYA vs ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST on 16 October 2026

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 Andhra Pradesh. The 1st 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 Forest for the panel year 2019-20. The 2nd 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 as such. The 3rd applicant, who was recruited as an FRO, in pursuance of the notification issued in 2004, was also promoted as Asst.Conservator of Forests against the panel year 2019-20. The 4th applicant was selected as a

Location:

PANDIRLAP ALLI SANDHYA

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 the age of 54 on the 1st 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

Location:

PANDIRLAP ALLI SANDHYA

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 and the 1st 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

Location:

PANDIRLAP ALLI SANDHYA

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.

Location:

PANDIRLAP ALLI SANDHYA

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

Location:

PANDIRLAP ALLI SANDHYA

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

Location:

PANDIRLAP ALLI SANDHYA

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 -

Location:

PANDIRLAP ALLI SANDHYA

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

Location:

PANDIRLAP ALLI SANDHYA

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

Location:

PANDIRLAP ALLI SANDHYA

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 considered in the same cadre. The 1st, 3rd and 4th 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 promotion to IFoS. The 2nd 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.

Location:

PANDIRLAP ALLI SANDHYA

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 from 2013 onwards. The 6th 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.

Location:

PANDIRLAP ALLI SANDHYA

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

Location:

PANDIRLAP ALLI SANDHYA

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 Forest Range Officer on 6th 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

Location:

PANDIRLAP ALLI SANDHYA

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?

Location:

PANDIRLAP ALLI SANDHYA

(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.

Location:

PANDIRLAP ALLI SANDHYA

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

Location:

PANDIRLAP ALLI SANDHYA

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.

Location:

PANDIRLAP ALLI SANDHYA

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

Location:

PANDIRLAP ALLI SANDHYA

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.

Location:

PANDIRLAP ALLI SANDHYA

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/

Location:

PANDIRLAP ALLI SANDHYA