Andhra Pradesh Forest Range Officers Are State Forest Service Members for IFoS Promotion; Court Orders Prospective Consideration

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih heard an appeal arising from a Special Leave Petition against a Division Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court which had set aside orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The dispute concerned whether Forest Range Officers (FROs) in the Andhra Pradesh Forest Service constituted the “State Forest Service” under Rule 2(g) of the Indian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1966, and whether FROs were entitled to be considered for promotion to the Indian Forest Service (IFoS).

The Supreme Court held that the approval referred to in Rule 2(g) related to the service and not to individual posts, and that members of Class A of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Service, including those in categories that included ACFs and Range Officers, were members of the State Forest Service if they had been substantively appointed. The Court directed that in future promotion exercises the FROs must be treated as eligible for appointment to the IFoS by promotion, but denied retrospective relief for past promotion processes. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “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.” The Court noted the Tribunal’s earlier finding that “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,” and reiterated the principle of timely prosecution of claims by quoting this Court’s observation in P.S. Sadasivaswamy: “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.”

Background The appellant, P. Maruthi Prasada Rao, was appointed Forest Range Officer on 6 April 2006 and promoted as Assistant Conservator of Forests on 30 August 2020, with 14 years’ service remaining. After completing eight years’ substantive service he sought a declaration that FRO service be treated as State Forest Service for consideration for promotion to IFoS under the 1966 Regulations, and to be considered for the select list. The Central Administrative Tribunal allowed the appellant’s OA and directed respondents to treat FROs as SFS officers and consider appointment to IFoS on promotion, observing discrimination and violation of Articles 14 and 16. The High Court allowed a writ petition by the State and set aside the Tribunal’s order, holding that the FRO post was not part of a State Forest Service approved by the Central Government under Rule 2(g)(i).

On appeal the Supreme Court examined Rule 2(g) (after omission of clause (ii)), Rules 3 and 4 of the Recruitment Rules, the Andhra Pradesh Forest Service Rules 1997 and the 1966 Regulations governing inclusion in the UPSC select list. The Court found no document on record showing a formal approval by the Central Government but accepted that approval under Rule 2(g) related to the service and not to individual posts. The Court concluded that posts included in Class A of the APFS carrying gazetted status would constitute the State Forest Service for the Recruitment Rules when substantively filled. However, the Court refused retrospective relief because several officers senior to the appellant existed, the appellant had delayed pursuing the grievance until 2021, and earlier promotion processes could not be upset. The Court directed that when a fresh exercise for filling IFoS vacancies was initiated, respondents were bound to follow all recruitment rules and consider FROs as eligible for promotion treating the Andhra Pradesh Forest Service as ‘State Forest Service’. The impugned High Court order was set aside and the appeal disposed of on these terms without costs.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 1019 Case Title: P. Maruthi Prasada Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Senior Counsel (for R1–R3); Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Additional Solicitor General (for R4)