Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
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 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. 1158
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.
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 UPSC [2025] 8 S.C.R. P. Maruthi Prasada Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. 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 (1975) 1 SCC 152 1160 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 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.
23. The appeal is disposed of on the aforesaid terms without any order for costs. Result of the case: Appeal disposed of. †Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey