P. MARUTHI PRASADA RAOversusTHE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

                [2025] 8 S.C.R. 1150 : 2025 INSC 1019

                       P. Maruthi Prasada Rao
                                  v.
                 The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
                      (Civil Appeal No. 11000 of 2025)
                                22 August 2025
       [Dipankar Datta* and Augustine George Masih, JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       Having regard to the provisions of the Indian Forest Service
       (Recruitment) Rules, 1966, more particularly the expression
       “State Forest Service” as defined in r.2(g), whether any service
       in a State connected with forestry having members of gazetted
       status is required to be approved by the Central Government in
       consultation with the State Government or is the approval of the
       Central Government relatable to and required in respect of a
       post in the State Forest Service; if it is answered that approval is
       relatable to the service and not post, what relief is the appellant
       entitled to on facts and in the circumstances.

                                  Headnotes†
       Indian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1966 – r.2(g) –
       “State Forest Service” – Meaning – Andhra Pradesh Forest
       Service Rules, 1997 – Indian Forest Service (Appointment by
       Promotion) Regulations, 1966 – Having regard to the provisions
       of the Recruitment Rules, more particularly the expression
       “State Forest Service” as defined in r.2(g), whether any service
       in a State connected with forestry having members of gazetted
       status is required to be approved by the Central Government
       in consultation with the State Government or is the approval
       of the Central Government relatable to and required in respect
       of a post in the State Forest Service – If it is answered that
       approval is relatable to the service and not post, what relief
       is the appellant entitled to:
       Held: Post of Forest Range Officer (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


* Author
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                           1151

     P. Maruthi Prasada Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.


     such service has been approved by the Central Government in
     consultation with the State Government for the purpose of the
     Recruitment Rules – 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 substantively appointed – Thus,
     are eligible for promotion to the Indian Forest Service (IFoS)
     in accordance with the Recruitment Rules – As and when the
     exercise for filling up vacancies in the IFoS is initiated afresh,
     the respondents 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 r.2(g) of the Recruitment Rules – Impugned judgment
     reversing the order of CAT directing to treat the FROs as SFS
     officers and consider appointment of the appellant to IFS on
     promotion, set aside – However, on facts, cause of action for the
     appellant to be considered for promotion arose after completion
     of continuous substantive appointment for eight years but, having
     not ventilated his grievance 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. [Paras 10, 13, 20-22]

                             Case Law Cited
     Gopal Singh v. State Cadre Forest Officer’s Association [2007] 6
     SCR 586 : (2007) 9 SCC 369; P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of
     T.N [1975] 2 SCR 356 : (1975) 1 SCC 152 – referred to.
     K. Shailendra Moses v. The State of Telangana, decision dated
     06.01.2021 of the High Court for the State of Telangana in
     W.P.No. 23856 of 2016 – referred to.

                                List of Acts
     Indian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1966; Andhra Pradesh
     Forest Service Rules, 1997; Indian Forest Service (Appointment by
     Promotion) Regulations, 1966; Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

                             List of Keywords
     Rule 2(g) of Indian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1966;
     State Forest Service; Forest Range Officer (FRO); Andhra Pradesh
     Forest Service; Promotion; Indian Forest Service (IFoS); Members
     of gazetted status; Forestry; Approval of the Central Government;
1152                                                        [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                              Supreme Court Reports


      Approved by the Central Government in consultation with the State
      Government; Vacancies in the Indian Forest Service; Assistant
      Conservator of Forests (ACF); Deputy Conservator of Forests
      (DCF); Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (PCCF).

                                Case Arising From
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11000 of 2025
      From the Judgment and Order dated 22.12.2023 of the High Court
      of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati in WP No. 29304 of 2022

                              Appearances for Parties
      Advs. for the Appellant:
      Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Adv., Byrapaneni Suyodhan, Ms. Tatini Basu,
      Kumar Shashank, Ms. Obulapuram Keerthi.
      Advs. for the Respondents:
      Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Ld. ASG, Gopal Sankaranarayanan,
      Sr. Adv., Ms. Prerna Singh, Guntur Pramod Kumar, Vishal Sinha,
      Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Ms. Shivika Mehra, Devvrat, Shivam Singh,
      Ms. Irul Srivastava, Ms. Harshita Sharma, Nitin Jain.

                     Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                    Judgment

      Dipankar Datta J.

1.    The High Court of Andhra Pradesh1, vide its judgment and order
      dated 22nd December, 2023, allowed a writ petition2 presented by
      the State of Andhra Pradesh, its Chief Secretary and the Principal
      Chief Conservator of Forests3 by reversing the judgment and order
      dated 12th April, 2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,
      Hyderabad Bench at Hyderabad4, which was under challenge. The
      Tribunal while allowing the appellant’s original application5 under


1    High Court
2    W.P. No. 29304 of 2022
3    PCCF
4    Tribunal
5    OA/020/00628/2021
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                              1153

      P. Maruthi Prasada Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.


      Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 had made certain
      positive directions. This appeal, by special leave, registers a challenge
      to the said judgment and order dated 22nd December, 20236.
2.    The basic facts are not in dispute. The appellant was appointed
      as Forest Range Officer7 on 6th April, 2006. He was promoted as
      Assistant Conservator of Forests8 on 30th August, 2020 and has 14
      years’ service left. On 11th January, 2021, the appellant addressed
      a representation to the PCCF urging that the FROs be considered
      as “State Forest Service Officers” and to consider the FROs when
      a list of suitable officers is prepared for appointment in the Indian
      Forest Service9 in terms of the Indian Forest Service (Appointment
      by Promotion) Regulations, 196610, should officers in the categories
      of Deputy Conservator of Forests 11 and ACFs be not available
      in a particular year. The inaction of the PCCF to consider such
      representation prompted the appellant to approach the Tribunal
      claiming inter alia the following relief:
             “It is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Tribunal be
             pleased to declare the action of the Respondents in not
             considering the FRO”s/applicants service as FRO cadre as
             State Forest Service for consideration of promotion to the
             cadre of IFS as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art.14 and
             16 of the Constitution of India and consequentially direct
             the respondents to consider the FRO’s / applicants service
             as FRO cadre as State Forest Service for consideration of
             promotion to the cadre of IFS and pass such other order
             or orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper
             in the circumstances of the case.”
      As noted above, the Tribunal allowed the appellant’s original
      application. The operative part of the Tribunal’s order reads as follows:
             “By not considering the case of the applicant though he
             is eligible as per RR-1966 and the 1966 Regulation on


6    impugned order
7    FRO
8    ACF
9    IFoS
10   1966 Regulations
11   DCF
1154                                                          [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


             par with ACF/DCF is violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the
             Constitution. The applicant coming under SFS, for reasons
             expounded in paras supra, has thus been discriminated.
             Therefore, the averment of the respondents that Articles
             14 & 16 of the Constitution have not been violated does
             not have the force of logic.
             In view of the aforesaid, the OA not only succeeds, but
             fully succeeds. Consequently, respondents are directed to
             treat the FROs as SFS officers and consider appointment
             of applicant to IFS on promotion, provided he is otherwise
             eligible against vacancies of the appropriate panel year.
             Time allowed to implement the judgment is 6 months from
             the date of receipt of this judgment. The time granted is
             6 months since the Ld. Counsel for the applicants has
             submitted that the bifurcation of the posts in SFS between
             the States of A.P & Telangana is still being deliberated.”
      The impugned order has set aside the aforesaid order.
3.    We have given a patient hearing to Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned
      senior counsel for the appellant, Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan,
      learned senior counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 (writ petitioners
      before the High Court) and Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional
      Solicitor General for the respondent no. 4 (Union of India).
4.    The questions that arise for our decision are:
      (i)    Having regard to the provisions of the Indian Forest Service
             (Recruitment) Rules, 196612, more particularly the expression
             “State Forest Service” as defined in Rule 2(g), whether any
             service in a State connected with forestry having members
             of gazetted status is required to be approved by the Central
             Government in consultation with the State Government or is the
             approval of the Central Government relatable to and required
             in respect of a post in the State Forest Service?
      (ii)   If we answer that approval is relatable to the service and not
             post, what relief is the appellant entitled to on facts and in the
             circumstances?


12   Recruitment Rules
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                               1155

      P. Maruthi Prasada Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.


5.    We note that the High Court upon its understanding of Rule 2(g)(i)
      of the Recruitment Rules as well as on consideration of the decision
      of this Court in Gopal Singh vs. State Cadre Forest Officer’s
      Association13 and a decision of a Division Bench of the High Court
      for the State of Telangana in K. Shailendra Moses vs. The State of
      Telangana14 was of the view that the posts included in the State Forest
      Services have to be approved under Rule 2(g)(i) of the Recruitment
      Rules and that the post of FRO is not a service approved by the
      Central Government for the purposes of the Recruitment Rules or the
      1966 Regulations for appointment by promotion to IFoS. Accordingly,
      it was concluded by the High Court 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 Regulation 1966;
              (3) the impugned judgment of the Central Administrative
              Tribunal cannot legally be sustained.”
6.    Since we are concerned in this appeal with the meaning of “State
      Forest Service” as defined by Rule 2(g) of the Recruitment Rules,
      it is considered apt to reproduce the same hereinbelow together
      with Rules 3 and 4 providing for ‘Constitution of the Service’ and
      the’ Method of Recruitment to such Service’. The same read thus:
              2. Definitions.
              (g) “State Forest Service” means
              (i) any such service in a State, being a service connected
              with forestry and the members thereof having gazetted


13   (2007) 9 SCC 369
14   W.P.No. 23856 of 2016, decided on 6th January, 2021
1156                                                         [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


            status, as the Central Government may, in consultation
            with the State Government, approve for the purpose of
            these rules:
            or
            (ii) Omitted.

            3. Constitution of the Service. - (1) The Service
            shall consist of the persons recruited to the Service in
            accordance with the provisions of these rules.

            4. Method of recruitment to the Service. - (1) Omitted.
            4(2) [ ] Recruitment to the service shall be by the following
            methods, namely
            (a) by a competitive examination:
            (aa) Omitted.
            (b) by promotion of substantive members of the State
            Forest Service,
7.    Parties are ad idem that Gopal Singh (supra) had interpreted
      Rule 2(g)(ii) of the Recruitment Rules, which does not fall for
      consideration here. Even otherwise, clause (ii) of Rule 2(g) has since
      been omitted. Hence, we do not consider it necessary to refer to
      such decision for the purpose of ascertaining the meaning of “State
      Forest Service”.
8.    What appears on a plain reading of Rule 2(g) [after omission of
      clause (ii)] 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 in consultation with the State Government for
      the purpose of ‘these rules’, i.e., the Recruitment Rules.
9.    Our attention has been drawn by Mr. Jayant Bhushan to the Andhra
      Pradesh Forest Service Rules, 199715. In terms of Rule 2 thereof,
      the Andhra Pradesh Forest Service consists of multiple categories
      of posts forming part of Classes A, B and C. Class A is comprised


15   APFS Rules
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                     1157

     P. Maruthi Prasada Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.


     of categories 1, 2 and 3 and we find, inter alia, the post of ACF and
     Range Officer to be included in categories 2 and 3, respectively.
     It has not been disputed before us that those included in Class A,
     Categories 1, 2 and 3, are having gazetted status.
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                                                        [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


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


16   UPSC
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                            1159

      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


17   (1975) 1 SCC 152
1160                                                       [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


     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