Forest Range Officer Service Is Not A State Forest Service Under Indian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules: Andhra Pradesh HC

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a Forest Range Officer service cannot be held to be covered in the definition of "State Forest Service" under Rule 2(g)(i) of the Indian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules 1966.

Quashing an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, the Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice BVLN Chakravarthi observed that, "The Tribunal erred in making equivalence of the post of Forest Range Officer to that of Assistant Conservator of Forests. It has been well settled by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court that the grant of equivalence is not the function of the Court or Tribunal. We are of the view that at least at the initial stage, where there is no consideration by the Authority competent i.e., the State or the Central Government as the case may be, the exercise by the Tribunal to hold the post of Forest Range Officer as much as the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests is wholly unjustified and uncalled for, though the grant or refusal of equivalence by the competent authority may be open to judicial review afterwards on the limited grounds."

In furtherance of the same, it was held that, "such equivalence could not be considered by the Tribunal and based thereon the Forest Range Officer could not be held to be covered in the definition of "State Forest Service" under Rule 2 (g) (i) of the Indian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules 1966."

Advocate General Subrahmanyam Sriram and GP G.V.S.Kishore Kumar appeared for the petitioners. Senior Counsel B. Adinarayana Rao and Counsel A. Rajendrababu appeared for the respondent.

In this case, the issue before the Bench was whether the post of Forest Range Officer has been recognized as part of "Forest Service" in terms of the recruitment prescribed under Rule 2 (g) (i) of the Indian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules 1966.

The 1st respondent was initially hired as a Forest Range Officer in May 2006 and later promoted to Assistant Conservator of Forests (ACF) in August 2020. The next potential promotion for the 1st respondent is to Deputy Conservator of Forests (DCF).

The petitioners did not consider the 1st respondent's request for promotion to the Indian Forest Service, despite rules allowing for the consideration of Forest Range Officer cadre Officers for promotion.

The Central Administrative Tribunal instructed the respondents to treat Forest Range Officers as State Forest Service Officers and assess the 1st respondent's eligibility for promotion to the Indian Forest Service, considering vacancies in the appropriate panel year. The Tribunal emphasized that the appointment procedure follows the Indian Forest Service Regulations 1966. It concluded that once the Forest Range Officer's cadre is part of the State Forest Service, the relevant rules of the State Forest Service must be applied to this cadre according to the Recruitment Rules 1966.

The High Court observed that, "The Tribunal based such equivalence on consideration of the criteria, with respect to the qualification, the method of recruitment, appointing authority, the age criteria and on the physical standards. The question would be not only with respect to the above considerations, but the question of equivalence would also require consideration of various other factors, inclusive of such as functions and the duties of the posts."

In light of the same, it was held 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;

Therefore, it was held that the impugned judgment could not be sustained, and was quashed.

Cause Title: The State of Andhra Pradesh vs P. Maruthi Prasada Rao & Ors.

Click here to read/download the Judgment