Institute of Legal and Management Studies

In a relief to Andhra Pradesh-based Forest Range Officers (“FROs”), the Supreme Court on Friday (Aug. 23) ruled that their services shall be entitled to be treated as 'State Forest Service', making them eligible to promotion to Indian Forest Service (“IFoS”).

The bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih heard the case where the Appellant, being a FRO, was aggrieved by the High Court's decision overturning the CAT's ruling which recognized FROs' eligibility for IFoS promotion.

Since FROs are gazetted officers within the Andhra Pradesh Forest Service, the judgment authored by Justice Datta ruled that they fall within the definition of State Forest Service once the service is duly approved by the Centre. After the Union of India, represented by the Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, conceded tothis interpretation before the Court, the Court directed the Centre & State to consider eligible FROs for IFoS promotion in all future recruitment exercises.

“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.”, the court said.

“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 added.

Interestingly, while the Supreme Court upheld the principle that FROs are eligible for promotion to the IFoS, the Appellant himself derived no benefit from the ruling. The Court declined to grant him retrospective promotion or service benefits, noting two key reasons: first, at least seven officers senior to him in the FRO cadre could not be bypassed; and second, although he became eligible in 2014, he only submitted a representation in 2021. Citing P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of T.N. (1975), the Court reiterated that belated claims cannot be allowed to unsettle settled positions.

“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.”, the court said.

Accordingly, the appeal was partly allowed.

Cause Title: P. MARUTHI PRASADA RAO VERSUS THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 830

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Byrapaneni Suyodhan, Adv. Ms. Tatini Basu, AOR Mr. Kumar Shashank, Adv. Ms. Obulapuram Keerthi, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv. Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, AOR Mr. Vishal Sinha, Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Ld. ASG Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Adv. Ms. Shivika Mehra, Adv. Mr. Devvrat, AOR Mr. Shivam Singh, Adv. Ms. Irul Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Harshita Sharma, Adv. Mr. Nitin Jain, Adv.