Approval Is for the Forest Service, Not for the Post: Supreme Court Opens Door for FROs to Enter Indian Forest Service Cadre

Forest Range Officers Can’t Be Denied IFoS Promotion on Technical Grounds — Rule 2(g) Speaks of Service, Not Post - In a judgment that may significantly impact the career progression of Forest Range Officers (FROs) across the country, the Supreme Court ruled that the interpretation of “State Forest Service” under Rule 2(g) of the Indian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1966 must focus on the service as a whole — not the individual posts.

The Court clarified that where a State’s forest service includes gazetted officers like FROs, the entire service — if connected with forestry and duly approved — qualifies as a “State Forest Service” eligible for promotion to the Indian Forest Service (IFoS).

“Approval of the Central Government which is referred to in Rule 2(g) relates to service and not post,” the Court firmly stated, dismantling the technical objections raised by the State of Andhra Pradesh and the High Court.

The appellant, P. Maruthi Prasada Rao, joined the Andhra Pradesh Forest Department as a Forest Range Officer in 2006 and was promoted as Assistant Conservator of Forests in 2020. In 2021, he made a representation demanding that FROs be considered as part of the State Forest Service for the purposes of promotion to the IFoS under the 1966 Recruitment Rules.

When no action was taken, he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, which granted him relief, holding 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.”

The Tribunal directed the State to treat the appellant as a member of the State Forest Service (SFS) and consider him for promotion to the IFoS, if otherwise eligible. However, this order was reversed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which held that FROs do not form part of an “approved” State Forest Service.

Is Rule 2(g) About the Post or the Service?

The central legal controversy revolved around Rule 2(g)(i) of the Indian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1966, which defines “State Forest Service” as:

“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.”

The High Court had held that since the post of FRO was not specifically approved by the Central Government, it could not be considered part of the State Forest Service.

The Supreme Court flatly rejected this view.

“What appears on a plain reading of Rule 2(g)… 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,” the bench held.

Focus Must Be on the Service as a Whole

The Court highlighted that under the Andhra Pradesh Forest Service Rules, 1997, Forest Range Officers are included in Class A, alongside ACFs and DCFs, and possess gazetted status.

Referring to these classifications, 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…”

The Court further noted that no evidence had been produced to show that the Andhra Pradesh Forest Service was not approved by the Centre — and that “an implied approval of the service may be inferred.”

On Delay and Scope of Relief: “You Slept Over Your Rights”

Though the Court accepted the appellant’s legal argument, it declined to grant retrospective relief, citing delay in asserting his rights. The appellant had completed 8 years of service by 2014 but made his first representation only in 2021.

“Having not ventilated his grievance… the appellant cannot be granted any relief in respect of past exercises undertaken for promotion,” the Court held.

Quoting P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of T.N., the Court observed: “It would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion… to refuse to exercise 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.”

Hence, the Court allowed only a prospective remedy: “As and when the exercise for filling up vacancies in the IFoS is initiated afresh, the respondents would be bound to… consider the FROs eligible for appointment by promotion treating the Andhra Pradesh Forest Service as ‘State Forest Service’.”

Rule 2(g) Is Not a Procedural Trap — It Ensures Inclusion, Not Exclusion

This decision brings much-needed clarity to what constitutes a “State Forest Service” under the IFoS Recruitment framework. The Supreme Court’s emphasis on interpreting Rule 2(g) in spirit and not merely by formality is a clear warning against administrative evasions.

In the Court’s words, “members of Class A… are members of the State Forest Service if they have been substantively appointed.” By focusing on substance over procedural technicality, the Court has opened a path for deserving FROs to rise to India’s premier forest service cadre — provided they act in time.

Date of Decision: August 22, 2025