http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 12  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1041-1044 of 2004

PETITIONER: Gopal Singh

RESPONDENT: State Cadre Forest Officers’ Association & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/05/2007

BENCH: H.K. Sema & V.S. Sirpurkar

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.

1.      This judgment shall dispose of four Civil Appeals, they being  Civil Appeal Nos.1041-1044 of 2004, all of which have been filed by  the present appellant. 2.      The appellant who is an employee of the Forest Department of  the Andaman & Nicobar Islands comes before us in the above  appeals challenging a common judgment passed by the High Court in  two writ petitions whereby the judgment in favour of the writ petitioner  passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to  as "Tribunal" for short) was upset allowing the writ petitions.  The  appellant has also challenged the further orders passed by the High  Court dismissing the Review Petitions filed by the appellant.  The  High Court vide its judgment set aside the order of the Tribunal and  allowed two writ petitions, one filed by the State Cadre Forest Officers  Association and another by the Andaman & Nicobar Administration.   They were W.P. C.T.No.209 of 1999 and W.P.C.T.No.246 of 1999.   The judgment of the Tribunal was itself passed in review whereby the  Review Petition filed by the appellant was allowed and the earlier  judgment passed by the Tribunal was upset and the Original  Application filed by the appellant was allowed.  The following facts  would be necessary to understand the controversy involved.   3.      The appellant, at the relevant time when he approached the  Tribunal, was holding the post of Assistant Mill Manager (hereinafter  referred to as "AMM" for short) in the Forest Department of Andaman.  The Service Profile of the appellant is as under: "He started his service as a Casual Labour on 12.7.1976.   He was appointed as Draftsman on adhoc basis on  20.7.1976 and thereafter as Assistant Constructional  Engineer w.e.f. 26.12.1980 and was posted in Saw Mill  Division, Chatham where he continued till March, 1984 in  that capacity.  In March, on the basis of the  recommendations of the Departmental Promotion  Committee for Group B post, he was promoted as  Assistant Mill Manager, Saw Mill Division vide notification  dated 16.3.1984.  His claim is that thereafter he was  posted to supervise the construction work at Rangat and  Rangat Bay.  He further claimed that he was assigned the  duty of supervision and inspection of the Saw Mill at  Betapur.  He also claimed that he was also directed to  exercise the powers and authority of Assistant  Conservator of Forest though at intervals.  Thus he  continued to be posted at Rangat, Middle Andamans as  Assistant Mill Manager from July, 1984 to June, 1992  during which period he had also been assigned the duties  of Assistant Conservator of Forest from time to time.  He,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 12  

therefore, claims that he enjoyed the same power and  authority of Assistant Conservator of Forest and for this  he relied on an order dated 9.12.1993."

When the petitioner was appointed initially, he was part of the Forest  Department of Andaman & Nicobar Islands governed by Andaman  Forest Department (Class I & Class II Gazetted Posts) Recruitment  Rules, 1963 (hereafter referred to as "the 1963 Rules") which were  amended on 3.8.1973.  Both these Rules provide for the recruitment  and promotion to the posts of Chief Conservator of Forests,  Conservator of Forests, Deputy Conservator of Forests, Assistant  Conservator of Forests, Assistant Mill Manager, Senior Assistant  Engineer and others.  The claim of the appellant, as it originally  stood, was that in terms of the aforementioned Rules, he deserved to  be promoted to the post of Deputy Conservator of Forests  (hereinafter referred to as "DCF" for short).  The basis of this claim  was that his post of AMM was equivalent in Grade-II to the post of  Assistant Conservator of Forests (hereinafter referred to as the "ACF"  for short) which was a feeder post for the promotion to the post of  DCF.  His further case was that as per the Indian Forest Service  (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966 [hereafter referred to  as the "IFS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966] dated  17.11.1965 he was entitled to be promoted to the post of DCF on the  basis of Sub Rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Indian Forest Service  (Recruitment) Rules, 1966 [hereinafter referred to as the "IFS  (Recruitment) Rules, 1966]. 4.      The 1963 Rules, as they initially stood, provided that there were  in all seven posts of DCF in the pay-scale of Rs.740-1150-1250.   Column 10 thereof provides "that the recruitment would be by  promotion, failing which by deputation.  For promotion it was  provided that it would be from the Assistant Conservator of  Forests of the Andamans Forest Department or officers holding  posts in an equivalent grade in the Adamans Forest Department  with not less than 5 years service in the grade".  The other mode  of recruitment was deputation with which we are not concerned.  At  Serial No.4 is the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests.  The  Rules suggest that there are nine posts which were Class-II gazetted  non-ministerial posts carrying the pay-scale of Rs.350-25-500-30- 590-EB-30-800-EB-30-830-35-900.  Column 7 which provides the  qualifications reads as under: "Essential:  Associateship Diploma of the Forest Research Institute  and Colleges, Dehradun or equivalent.   Candidates selected for training at Dehradun will be  required to possess the following educational  qualifications: Degree in Natural Science, Maths, Geology, Mechanical  Engineering or Agriculture of recognized University or  equivalent qualification."

In so far as the post of AMM is concerned, it appears at Serial No.5,  which is also a Class-II Gazetted non-ministerial post carrying the  pay-scale of Rs.350-25-500-30-590-EB-30-800-EB-30-800 if the post  if filled by the direct recruitment.  However, the pay-scale is different  in case this post is filled in by ACF which pay-scale is identical with  the ACF pay-scale which we have quoted earlier, meaning thereby  the AMM post had a slightly lower pay-scale as compared to the post  of ACF.  Column No.7 which provides the qualification for the post of   AMM is as under: "Essential: Experience of timber trade and sawing practice for about  five years. Qualifications relaxable at Commission’s discretion in  case of candidates otherwise well qualified.   Desirable:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 12  

A degree in Engineering or Science."

These Rules underwent a slight change when they were amended in  1973.  The 1973 amendment changed the Schedule in so far as the  requirements (educational qualifications, etc.) for the post of ACF and  AMM are concerned.  Now the essential qualifications required for the  post of ACF were as under: "At least 2nd class degree in Natural Sciences,  Mathematics, Statistics, Geology, Mechanical  Engineering, Civil or Chemical Engineering, Agriculture or  Economics of a recognized University or equivalent.   Graduate in pure Mathematics, Statistics, must have had  biology, physics or chemistry as a subject in Higher  Secondary or Matriculation or equivalent."

We are not concerned with the other essential qualifications which  pertain to physique, etc.  We must, however, know that these were  the essential qualifications for the post of ACF.  The pay-scale also  remained identical.  Now, for the first time, the "essential" qualification  was provided for the post of AMM which was as under: "Essential: (i) A degree in Civil, Mechanical or Chemical  Engineering or Master’s degree in Chemistry or  recognized university or equivalent, (ii) 3 years  experience of timber or sawing practice or both in total.   (Qualification relaxable at the discretion of the UPSC in  case of candidates otherwise well qualified).

The pay-scale was now increased and it was Rs.350-25-500-590-EB- 30-830-35-900, which is identical to the post of ACF.  However, it was  provided that if the ACF was appointed in the post of AMM, he would  draw his grade’s pay.  There was also amendment in respect of the  recruitment of both these posts.  The relevant columns in respect of  both the posts, i.e., ACF and AMM at the time of 1963 Rules and at  the time of amendment in 1973 are given below in juxtaposition: Post 1963 Rules 1973 Rules  ACF Promotion \026 Rangers of the  Andaman Forest  Department (with 10 years  service in the grade) Promotion \026 Trained  Forest Rangers of  Andaman Forest  Department having seven  (7) years service in the  grade rendered after  appointment thereto on a  regular basis. AMM Transfer, failing which by  direct recruitment Promotion \026 Assistant  Constructional Engineer  and Superintendent  Timber Treatment Plant  and Seasoning Kiln with 3  years service in the  respective grades.   Transfer \026 Assistant  Conservator of Forests  possessing at least 3  years.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 12  

5.      On the basis of these Rules, it was contended by the appellant  before the Tribunal that particularly after the amendment in 1973 the  post of AMM became equivalent to that of ACF.  The 1963 Rules as  well as 1973 Rules were still in vogue and, therefore, there was a  channel for promotion to the post of DCF from the post of ACF as  was originally provided and now from the post of an equivalent grade.   Since the 1973 the post of AMM became equivalent to the post of  ACF and, therefore, he was also bound to be considered for  promotion to the post of DCF as per the 1963 Rules as amended in  1973.  The appellant also relied upon the Gradation Lists from which  the appellant sought to read the equivalence of his post to the post of  ACF. 6.      In his Original Application, the appellant also mentioned the  new Recruitment Rules, viz., Andaman & Nicobar Forest Service  Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the "1991 Rules") issued on  25.7.1991 constituting a central service to be known as the Andaman  and Nicobar Islands Forest Service with two grades, namely, Time  Scale and Selection Grade.  The selection grade was put under  Central Civil Grade A and the Time Scale in Central Civil Grade B.   According to these Rules all the ACFs working in the Andaman and  Nicobar Forest Service were to be placed in either of the above two  grades.  These Rules excluded all other State Forest Service Grade  B officers except ACF.  He complained against the position that for  constitution of the new service the cases of only ACFs were to be  submitted to UPSC excluding all other grades under Andaman &  Nicobar Forest Service Grade B Officers.  He claimed that he made  the representations to this effect, but the same was rejected.  On  these contentions he finally claimed that he was eligible firstly  according to the Recruitment Rules of 1963/1973 for promotion to the  grade of DCF and was also eligible for inclusion in the list of officers  of the Andaman Forest Service for appointment on promotion to the  post of DCF specified in Schedule of Rule 5 of  IFS (Appointment by  Promotion) Regulations, 1966. 7.      This claim was opposed by the State which raised contentions  that there were two channels of promotion in the Forest Department,  i.e., Channel of Forestry and Technical Channel.  It was pointed out  that the applicant was in the Technical Channel as Assistant Mill  Manager with promotional avenue to the post of Production Manager  Grade-A under the Recruitment Rules and he could have no claim to  the post on the forestry side and the posts of ACF as well as DCF are  on the forestry side.  It was pointed out that after the constitution of  Indian Forest Service and All India Service with effect from 1.7.1966  all the posts of DCF and Conservator of Forests available in A&N  Islands were encadred with IFS and recruitment to the above cadre  posts was governed by the IFS (Recruitment) Rules, 1966.  It was  further pointed out that the posts of ACF were of separate cadre of  the State Forest Service and they alone were eligible for induction in  the IFS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966.  It was also  stated that the definition given under the IFS (Recruitment) Rules,  1966 of the term of "State Forest Service" in the State being a service  connected with forestry.  Only the members thereof having gazetted  status as the Central Government may, in consultation with the State  Government, approve for the purposes of those Rules or any service  in such Central Civil posts of Class-I and Class-II connected with  forestry as may be approved by the Central Government could walk  into the IFS.  It was pointed out that AMM was not such a post as it  was not even concerned with the forestry.  It was further pointed out  that the post of ACF alone was classified as A&N Island Forest  Service under para 20A of the A&N Ilsnad Forest Service and under  para 20A of the A&N Forest Department Code, 1975.  It was pointed  out that the post of AMM was classified as gazetted staff outside the  cadre of A&N Forest Service along with other gazetted posts such as  Veterinary Officer, Accounts Officer, Senior Assistant Engineers, etc.   As regards 1963 Rules, the Department contended that the AMM was  not included as a feeder cadre for promotion to the post of DCF in the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 12  

Recruitment Rules of 1963 nor was it a post of equivalent grade to  the post of ACF.  It was further clarified that after the constitution of  Indian Forest Service during 1966 all the posts of DCF were  encadred into the Indian Forest Service and, therefore, Recruitment  Rules, 1963 had no application thereto.  It was pointed out that only  promotional channel available to the appellant was the post of  Production Manager.  The State also raised an objection regarding  the limitation. 8.      The Tribunal, on the basis of these, pleadings accepted the  objections raised by the respondent State and rejected the Original  Application.  The Tribunal also, in its detailed judgment, recorded a  finding, firstly that the appellant could not be said to be in State  Forest Service within the meaning of IFS (Recruitment Rules), 1966  and secondly the said post could not be connected with forestry.  The  Tribunal also compared the posts of ACF and AMM and pointed out  that the two posts were not comparable to each other.  It further  observed that scope for the promotion to the post of DCF, as per the  1963 Rules, no more existed after the encadrement of the post of  DCF in the IFS.  It noted that there were only 7 posts of DCF, they  being, DCF (Depot Division), DCF (Mill Division), DCF (Sericulture),  DCF (Works Plan), DCF (Utilisation Division), DCF  (Planning/statistics) and DCF (Wildlife).  The Tribunal noted that there  was no other post of DCF besides the abovementioned encadred  posts which, as per Rule 8 were required to be filled by only State  cadre officers.  The Tribunal, therefore, observed that unless a  person is brought to the cadre of IFS, the cadre post cannot be filled  in.  It was also pointed out that long before the promotion of the  applicant as AMM in 1984, the post of DCF was taken away from the  ambit of 1963 Rules as amended and as such there was no existing  right conferred by the 1963 Rules as amended in 1973 on the  appellant which is taken away by the new Rules.  Because of IFS  (Service) Rules, 1966 and 1991 Rules,  the post of AMM could not be  made a feeder post for IFS cadre.  The Tribunal also referred to the  Regulations, namely, Indian Forest Service (Initial Recruitment)  Regulations, 1966 and Indian Forest Service (Appointment by  Promotion) Regulations, 1966 and pointed out from Regulation 5  thereof that such feeder cadre has to be the members of "State  Forest Service" and as per the Rules of 1991, the appellant could not  be viewed as a member of the State Forest Service.  The Tribunal  also took into consideration the argument regarding the Gradation  Lists relied upon by the petitioner as they existed on 1.1.1989 and  1.1.1990 and came to the conclusion that these gradation lists were  erroneous and could not be relied upon to come to the conclusion  that the AMM was a member of A&N Forest Service.  It, therefore,  came to the conclusion that even if the appellant was a member of  "A&N Forest Department", he could not be said to be a member of  the "State Forest Service" as envisaged in IFS (Recruitment) Rules  1966.  The Tribunal also noted that a new avenue was, however,  made available for the technical post of AMM in 1988 and it was also  pointed out that the newly created post of Production Manager was  equivalent to DCF as regards classification and pay-scales.  The  Tribunal also gave a specific finding that the post of AMM was not  connected with forestry.  In that the Tribunal noted the promotion  channel to the post of ACF vis-‘-vis the AMM and pointed out that  those in the feeder posts to the promotion of ACF were essentially  the persons connected with forestry whereas in case of AMM such  was the counter position.  In that view the Tribunal rejected the  Original Application filed by the appellant.   9.      This order was thereafter challenged by the appellant by filing a  Review Application.  The Tribunal took a completely contrary stand in  the Review and allowed the Original Application of the appellant.  In  the name of writing a Review Order, the Tribunal wrote a fresh order.   This is apart from the fact that we do not find any reason having been  given by the Tribunal for reviewing the earlier order.  The Tribunal re- framed three questions for decision.  They were:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 12  

"(i)    Whether the applicant was rightly excluded from the  gradation list of the Andaman Forest Service for  promotion to the post of DCF in view of the Recruitment  Rules of 1973 as also from the selection list of Andaman  Forest Service for appointment on promotion to the cadre  post of Indian Forest Service in terms of Regulation 5  read with Rules 8/9 of the Indian Forest Service  (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966. (ii)    Whether the applicant was entitled to seek direction  to prepare the gradation list of the officers of the Forest  Department of Andaman & Nocobar Islands as on  1.1.1994 in terms of the prevailing Recruitment Rules,  1963 as amended in 1973 in terms of Regulation 5 of the  Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion)  Regulations, 1966. (iii)   Whether the applicant was entitled to seek direction  upon the respondents to fill up the post of Dy.  Conservator of Forest by way of promotion treating the  applicant at par with the Assistant Conservator of Forests  in terms of Recruitment Rules, 1963 and in terms of Rule  5 of Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion)  Rules, 1966."

The Tribunal came to the conclusion firstly that the AMM and ACF  were cadre posts of Andaman Forest Department under Recruitment  Rules, 1963.  It pointed out that the Recruitment Rules, 1963/1973  were framed under Article 309 of the Constitution while the Code of  1975 was with the approval of Ministry concerned and, therefore, by  promulgation of Code of 1975, the conditions of service could not be  changed and if the Code is found inconsistent to the Recruitment  Rules, it was, to that extent, bound to be ignored.  It further came to  the conclusion that since the earlier post of AMM was renamed or re- designated as DCF and since under the new set up there was one  post of DCF in the Mill Division of Andaman Forest Department,  therefore, the Mill Division was connected with forestry.  The Tribunal  further came to the conclusion that the post of AMM and ACF were  equivalent and feeder posts for promotion to the post of DCF.  The  Tribunal came to a finding that if Rule 2(g)(ii) , Rule 4(2)(b), Rule 8 of  IFS (Recruitment) Rules, 1966 are read along with the proviso to  Explanation I under Regulation 5(2) of the IFS (Appointment by  Promotion) Regulations, 1966 which were framed in pursuance of  Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 8 of IFS (Recruitment) Rules, 1966 and in  consultation with the State Government and Union Public Service  Commission, the officers belonging to the category of Rule 2(g) of the  Recruitment Rules, 1966 can be considered for promotion to the  Union Territory cadre of Forest Department of Andaman for the  purposes of inclusion in the select list.  It was further found that there  was an object of consideration for promotion to the Union Territory  cadre for publication of the notification incorporating the proviso into  the proviso to Explanation I of Regulation 5(2) of the IFS  (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966 and therefore, there  was no further notification required for the consideration of the case  of the officers belonging to the category of Rule 2(g) of the IFS  (Recruitment) Rules, 1966.  it was further found by the Tribunal that  the Central Government had already decided to consider the cases of  the officers including the holder of the post of AMM who fell within the  category of officers referred to in Rule 2(g) for the purposes of  inclusion in the select list of A&N Forest Service  to be considered for  promotion to the Union Territory cadre.  The Tribunal in para 16  recorded a finding that the appointment to the Union Territory Cadre  posts specified in the Schedule of IFS (Fixation of Cadre Strength)  Regulations, 1966 can be made not only from the post of ACF but  also from the Gazetted Officers of Class I & II posts of such service  as specified in Rule 2(g)(i)(ii) of the Recruitment Rules having 8 years  continuous service.  On these grounds, the Original Application was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 12  

allowed and the Tribunal directed the respondents to take necessary  steps forthwith for the consideration of the applicant’s case for  promotion to the post of DCF.   10.     This order was challenged by two separate writ petitions, first  by the State and the second by the Association called State Cadre  Forest Officers Association.  These writ petitions were allowed by the   High Court of Calcutta by a common judgment setting aside the order  of the Tribunal.  The Review Applications challenging the same also  were disposed of by a separate common judgment.  These two  orders have fallen for our consideration in the present appeals. 11.     The High Court judgment delivered by the Division Bench in  fact consists of two concurring judgments.  Justice P.K. Ray framed  two questions.  They were: "(1)    Whether the Tribunal was competent to declare the  two posts of ACF and AMM as equivalent posts. (2)     Whether the post of AMM under the cadre of A&N  Island Forest Department would be entitled to have  consideration for promotion to the post of DCF which was  encadred post of Indian Forest Service."

On both the questions the learned Judge found against the appellant.   On the first question the learned Judge held that it was not for the  Tribunal to re-write the Recruitment Rules, particularly when the  Rules did not provide such equivalence.  Further the learned Judge  held that because of 1991 Rules, it was only the post of ACF which  was made a feeder post for the promotion to the post of DCF and it  was not for the Tribunal to direct that the post of AMM should also be  included in such feeder post.  The learned Judge also found that  even the channels of promotion for the post of ACF and AMM were  different and the post of AMM was only of technical nature and could  not said to be "connected with the forestry" and, therefore, the post of  AMM was outside the IFS (Recruitment) Rules, 1966 and the IFS  (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966, more particularly  Rule 2(g)(ii).  The learned Judge also noted that while ACF could  be  appointed as AMM, the AMM could not, however, be transferred to  the post of ACF.  The learned Judge clearly found that the post of  ACF and the feeder post to the ACF were essentially connected with  forestry whereas the post of AMM and the feeder posts thereto could  not be said to be connected with forestry.  On this ground the learned  Judge allowed the writ petitions and set aside the order of the  Tribunal. 12.     A separate concurring judgment was also delivered by Justice  S.B. Sinha (as His Lordship then was).  He framed a question: "Whether despite coming into force of 1991 Rules could  the petitioner claim his promotion to the post of DCF  under the 1963 Rules.   

The learned Judge took a complete stock of the first judgment of the  Tribunal and the findings returned therein.  Learned Judge found that  besides the Rules mentioned earlier some new Rules were framed in  1988 providing for the promotion to the post of Production Manager in  Andaman & Nicobar Forest Department Recruitment Rules which  created a separate channel of promotion to AMM, Senior Assistant  Engineer, Mechanical Engineer, etc.  The learned Judge also found  that by 1991 Rules a new service was brought into existence  consisting of only the ACF.  The learned Judge also held that the post  of AMM was a technical post and the post of ACF was forestry based  post.  The learned Judge gave a very clear finding that the Tribunal  had exceeded its review jurisdiction in passing the impugned order  inasmuch as the Tribunal had failed to point out any error apparent  on the face of the record.  The learned Judge took a complete stock  of 1963 Rules and the IFS (Recruitment) Rules, 1966 and the  Regulations framed thereunder as also the amendments made in  1973.  The learned Judge came to the conclusion that the post of  AMM had nothing to do with the forestry.  The learned Judge then

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 12  

noted 1991 Rules and more particularly Rules 5, 14 and 17 thereof  and concluded that by reason of the Rules framed in 1991, a different  post was created whereby the 1963 Rules in so far as they apply to  the post of ACF were impliedly repealed.  The learned Judge further  held that even if it could be held that 1963 Rules survive, they had to  be read subject to the provisions of the later Rules.  The learned  Judge, as a matter of fact, found that there was no approval granted  by the Central Government regarding the service of AMM as  envisaged in Rule 2(g)(ii) of IFS (Recruitment) Rules, 1966.  The  learned Judge also laid a great stress on the terminology connected  with "forestry" and came to the conclusion that the intention of the  Legislature was to take the forestry out from the technical section in  relation to the encadred post.  Further relying on the decision of this  Court in State of U.P. vs J.P. Chaurasia & Ors. [(1989) 1 SCC 121]  the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the equation found by  the Tribunal in the post of AMM and ACF was a thorough misreading  on the part of the Tribunal.  On these grounds the learned Judge  concurred with the judgment of Justice Ray that the Tribunal’s second  judgment passed in Review Application was liable to be set aside. 13.     Shri Rao, Senior Advocate, painstakingly took us through the  1963 Rules, the amendments made in 1973 as also IFS  (Recruitment) Rules, 1966 and the Regulations made thereunder.   Our attention was invited specifically to Rule 2(g)(ii) and Rule 4(1) of  the IFS (Recruitment) Rules read with third proviso to Regulation 5(2)  and first proviso to Explanation I of IFS (Appointment by Promotion)  Regulations, 1966.  Rule 2(g)(ii)  is as under: "2(g)(ii)       Any service in such Central Civil Post: Class I  or Class II, connected with forestry, as may be approved  by the Central Government for the purposes of these  rules."

Rule 4 which provides for method of recruitment to the service  suggests that the Central Government may recruit to the service any  person from amongst the members of the State Forest Service and  adjudge suitably in accordance with such Regulations made by the  Central Government.  It also provides that such member who is  covered under Rule 2(g)(ii) shall be allocated only to the cadre of  Union Territory.  Reference was also made to Regulation 5(2) and  first proviso to Explanation I thereof.  Regulation 5(2) provides the  modalities in which the selection by way of promotion is to be made.   The concerned proviso on which the learned counsel relies is as  under: "Provided that the officers belonging to any service  referred to in Item (ii) of Clause (g) of Rule 2 of the  Recruitment Rules, shall not be eligible to be considered  for promotion to any cadre other than the Union  Territories cadre."

Learned counsel insisted upon us that because of the proviso it is not  possible for the appellant to be considered for the promotion to any  other cadre than the Union Territories, i.e., Andaman & Nicobar.   Learned counsel argues that it is no doubt true that the conjoint  reading of 1991 Rules and Rule 2(g)(ii) suggest that it is the post of  ACF alone which would be the feeder post for the promotion to the  post of DCF.  However, the learned counsel relies heavily on the  language of Rule 2(g)(ii) and suggests that the language is broad  enough to include any other service like the service in the Forest  Department of Andaman & Nicobar so that even such service is not  left out of consideration.  According to Shri Rao, as per the plain  language of Rule 2(g)(ii) no prior approval of the State Government is  required.  Learned counsel suggests that the words "as may be  approved by the Central Government" in Rule 2(g)(i) and 2(g)(ii) only  show that the Government has the power in future to include any  other post.  However, the words "any service in such Central Civil  post Class I or Class II connected with forestry" would suggest

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 12  

that every such service in Class I or Class II including the post of  AMM would come under the State Forest Service and would be  covered under Rule 2(g)(ii).  In short the contention is that the clause  starting with words "as may be approved...... these Rules" is not  mandatory and the said approval is not a must.  For this the learned  counsel relies on the decision of this Court  Land Acquisition  Officer & Mandal Revenue Officer vs. V. Narasaiah [(2001) 3 SCC  530]  wherein in para 14 it has been held that "may be" means "may"  or "may not be".  In our opinion the argument is clearly incorrect and  would violate the language.  The language is plain and simple to  mean that for any service to be included in the State Forest Service  would be firstly required to be connected with forestry and  secondly it has to be approved by the Central Government for the  purposes of these Rules.  If we give the meaning as is canvassed  by the learned counsel, then there would be no necessity of the  words "as may be approved by the Central Government for the  purpose of these Rules".  We cannot accept the interpretation.  The  ruling cited by the learned counsel is in entirely different context.   That was the case where the question was as to whether the court  could accept in evidence a certified copy of the registered document  under Section 51A of the Act.  The court simply held that this gave a  discretion to the concerned court to accept or not to accept such  copies in evidence.  In our opinion there is no significance in the  present provision, i.e., Rule 2(g)(ii) of the words "as may be  approved" as is suggested by the learned counsel.  On the other  hand the meaning is clearly discernible that there would have to be  approval by the Central Government in favour of any service for being  included in the State Forest Service.  We, therefore, reject the  contention raised by the learned counsel.   14.     It was tried to be further suggested that there was no approval  of the Central Government to the service of ACFs and, therefore, the  requirement of the approval of the Central Government was of no  consequence.  We have noted that firstly it was nobody’s case that  there was no approval of the Central Government to the service of  ACF as envisaged in Rule 2(g)(ii).  There is no argument to that  effect.  Further the question is not as to whether there was any  approval of the ACF, the question is whether there was an approval  to the service of AMM and there is a clear cut finding by the High  Court that there was no such approval atleast none which was proved  before the High Court.  When the language is plain, we do not look  hither and thither to interpret the same and in our opinion the  language of this provision is extremely clear and unambiguous.  A  plain reading of the Rule clearly suggests that there would have to be  approval for any service being included in the State Forest Service. 15.     The matters do not stop there.  The second contention is that  any such service, in order to be included in the State Forest Service  must be connected with forestry and AMM is such service.  Learned  counsel very interestingly argued that we would have to give a broad  meaning to the word "connected with forestry".  According to the  learned counsel the words "connected with" would broaden the scope  and then if the broad meaning of the word is to be given, then it would  not be necessary for the concerned service to be only a forestry  post and any other service which would have even a distant relation  with the subject of forestry would be liable to be included in the  category of "connected with forestry".  The argument is extremely  interesting, however, lacks the merits.  In order to buttress his  contention, the learned counsel argues that the post of CCF, CF,  DCF, ACF and AMM were all covered under the 1963 Rules before  the amendment in 1964.  These were the Forest Department posts  and the only reason why these posts were included in the IFS was  because they all were connected with the forestry.  The learned  counsel further says that at that time there was a promotional avenue  for the AMM to the post of DCF as the post of AMM and ACF were all  equivalent grade.  Learned counsel points out that by amendment of  Rules in 1964, the post unconnected with forestry were added to the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 12  

Schedule of 1963 Rules.  They being the posts of Senior Asstt.  Engineer, Veterinary Officer and Accounts Officer, etc.  From this the  learned counsel says that since the post of AMM was included in the  unamended Rules of 1963, it must be held to be a post connected  with forestry and further since the post of AMM which was equivalent  to the post of ACF in grade could be a feeder post for the promotion  to the post of DCF and as such the post of AMM would be connected  with forestry.   16.     We are afraid on both the contentions the learned counsel was  wrong.  Firstly, merely because the post of AMM was included in the  unamended Rules of 1963, that by itself would not make it  "connected with the forestry".  In order to be a post "connected with  the forestry", the test would be the actual duties and powers of the  particular post and the qualifications required.  In our view merely  because the post of AMM was clubbed with the others like CCF, CF,  DCF, ACF and was also mentioned in 1963 Rules would not make it  a post "connected with forestry".  In this behalf, High Court has given  very good reasons to suggest that the post is not "connected with the  forestry".  It is clear from the facts that an AMM has no duty regarding  the forest, he has to merely run and control the further cutting of  timber which has been brought to the mill.  He does not have even a  distant connection with the forest or the growth and development  thereof.  He has no place in the policy making even in the forestry or  the allied subjects regarding the forest.  His duties are not concerned  with the flora and fauna of the forest.  There is a very clear cut finding  given by the High Court on this issue as also by the Tribunal in its first  order.  No attempt was made to show as to how the High Court was  wrong in any manner in concluding that the AMM had no concern  with the forest.  No material was brought before us to suggest that the  AMM had any such duty directly relatable to the forest.  We,  therefore, confirm the finding of the High Court in that behalf.   17.     The High Court while giving that finding has also considered the  educational qualifications required.  The qualifications required for  AMM in the unamended Rules were 5 years experience of timber  trade and sawing practice. In sharp contradiction to this in the  unamended Rules the qualifications for ACF were Associateship  Diploma of the Forest Research Institute and Colleges, Dehradun or  equivalent with the educational qualifications like degree in Natural  Science, Maths, Geology, Mechanical Engineering or Agriculture of  recognized University or equivalent qualification.  In the unamended  Rules of 1963 these qualifications were not at all there for AMM.  The  essential qualifications for the post of ACF, therefore, clearly suggest  that for being ACF one has to have a degree in the subjects and also  the diploma of the recognized Forest Research Institute.  Barring the  experience of the timber trade and sawing practice of five years,  there was no essential qualifications in the unamended Rules for the  post of AMM.  The degree in science was only a desirable  qualification and not essential one.  In 1973 after the amendment the  post of AMM also required the essential qualifications of a degree in  Civil, Mechanical or Chemical Engineering or Masters Degree in  Chemistry or recognized University or equivalent and three years  experience of timber or sawing practice while the essential  qualifications for the post of ACF was the degree in Natural Science,  Maths, Statistics, Geology, Mechanical Engineer, Civil or Chemical  Engineering, Agriculture or Economics, etc.  Therefore, one thing is  clear that atleast till 1973 there was no necessity on the part of the  AMM to be a degree-holder or to have a degree in any subject  "connected with forestry" nor was a diploma of Forest Research  Institute was required unlike ACF.  It would be clear from this that  again in 1973 the degree that was required was only in Civil,  Mechanical or Chemical Engineering or Masters Degree in Chemistry  the subjects which have nothing to do with forest.  Further, unlike the  ACF qualifications there was no necessity on the part of the AMM to  have Biology, Physics or Chemistry as subjects in Higher Secondary  or Matriculation or equivalent.  This itself suggests that the post of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 12  

AMM was more technical based than forestry based.   18.     Even when we consider the Promotion Rules in 1973, the  promotion to the post of ACF was to be from amongst the trained  Forest Rangers of Andaman & Nicobar Forest Department having  seven years experience  while for the promotion to the post of AMM,  the Assistant Constructional Engineer and the Superintendent,  Timber Treatment Plant and Seasoning Kiln with three years  experience were entitled who have no concern with forest.  This  suggests that the post of AMM was of a technical nature while the  post of ACF was connected with forestry.   19.     This is further apart from the fact that from 1963 till 1973, the  post of AMM could not be held to be a feeder post for the promotion  to the post of DCF as it was not a post of equivalent grade with the  post of ACF as even the pay scale of the post of AMM was not  equivalent to that of the ACF.  We have clarified this position in para  4 of this judgment.  It is true that pay-scale was brought on par with  the pay scale of ACF but that by itself, in our opinion, would not make  any difference because by 1966 the Rules of the Central Government  had already come on the anvil which provided a clear cut definition  for State Forest Service and as if that was not sufficient, the 1991  Rules clarified everything which created a new service altogether and  included only ACF for the purposes of being promoted to the post of  DCF which post by then was already included in the All India IFS  Cadre.  The contention, therefore, that the post of AMM was  equivalent in grade to the ACF and was also "connected with forestry"  has to be rejected.   20.     A feeble argument was tried to be raised that the definition of  "Forest Officer" given in Section 2(2) of the Indian Forest Act read  with Section 32(a) thereof suggests that the functions of the Forest  Officers include the cutting, sawing, conversion and removal of trees  and timber, etc.  The argument has no basis as besides those duties  the Forest Officer has other duties connected with forest and merely  because sawing and cutting of the timber come within his duties  which is similar as that of AMM, the AMM will not become a post  "connected  with the forestry". The AMM’s duty is only connected with  the mill.  The AMM does not have to take a decision with regard to  how the trees will have to be grown or cut in the forest and in what  manner.   21.     Shri Rao relied upon the decision of this Court in Mullaperiyar  Environmental Protection Forum vs. Union of India & Others  [(2006) 3 SCC 643] and more particularly para 28 thereof.  This  decision perhaps has been relied upon only to show that the term  "forest" covers even the water channels, creeks, reservoirs, streams,  lakes, etc. In our opinion the decision is not at all apposite to the  present subject.  We, therefore, do not agree with the learned  counsel that firstly the post of AMM has connection with the forestry  and in order to so hold it is necessary for us to give a broad meaning  to the words "connected with forestry".  In our opinion firstly the post  of AMM cannot be held to be equivalent post to the post of ACF and  secondly it cannot be held to be "connected with forestry". 22.     There is no dispute that by now all the posts of DCF are  included in the IFS Cadre and there is no post now remaining in the  Andaman & Nicobar which would still be covered under the 1963  Rules.  Therefore, we reject the argument of the learned counsel that  if not under the All India Cadre atleast under the 1963 Rules, which  according to the learned counsel still survive, the appellant would be  entitled to the promotion to the post of DCF.  We are in complete  agreement with Justice Sinha who has held that because of the  subsequent Rules, the 1963 Rules would have to be read as  amended to that extent.  We were not addressed on that aspect of  the judgment of Justice Sinha nor was that part assailed by the  learned counsel in his address. 23.     Learned counsel for the State specifically drew our attention to  the 1991 Rules which came into existence on 25.7.1991.  Rule 3 of  those Rules specifically provides the constitution of service and its

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 12  

classification.  The Rule creates two grades, namely, Time Scale and  Selection Grade.  It is further provided that post in the Selection  Grade shall be Central Civil Group A post and those in Time Scale  shall be Central Civil Post Group B post.  Rule 4 provides for the  strength of the service which would be as provided in the Schedule  while Rule 5 provides for the method of recruitment.  Rule 5 provides  that 25% of the vacancies would be filled in by direct recruitment  while the remaining vacancies shall be filled in by promotion by  selection.  Rule 5(1) provides that the officers who have completed  not less than eight years of regular service in the category of  "Rangers" would be considered for promotion.  The Rules also  provide for physical fitness, vide Rule 10.  Rule 17 speaks of the  initial appointment to the service and specifically provides that the  existing regular incumbents to the post of ACF (Group B Gazetted) in  the Forest Department including those who are under Diploma  Course Training at State Forest Service Colleges would be deemed  to have been appointed to the to the service at the initial constitution  thereof.  When we see the Schedule, we get the authorized strength  of the service and the nature of the post included and we find only the  post of ACF Selection Grade and Time Scale to be included in the  Schedule.  According to the learned counsel for the State this would  mean that the other posts are specifically excluded from the  Andaman & Nicobar Island Forest Service.  Once this position is  clear, there will be no question of the appellant claiming his case to  be considered for promotion.   24.     It was suggested lastly by Shri Rao that till now no domicile of  the Andaman & Nicobar Island has been considered for promotion to  IFS and if the appellant succeeds, he would be the first said person.   We cannot entertain this sentimental argument as indeed the  appellant cannot be viewed as belonging to the Forest Service. 25.     The learned counsel for the State also pointed out that there  was no necessity whatsoever on the part of the Tribunal to review its  own judgment.  Even after the microscopic examination of the  judgment of the Tribunal we could not find a single reason in the  whole judgment as to how the review was justified and for what  reasons.  No apparent error on the face of the record was pointed,  nor was it discussed. Thereby the Tribunal sat as an appellate  authority over its own judgment.  This was completely impermissible  and we agree with the High Court (Justice Sinha) that the Tribunal  has traveled out of its jurisdiction to write a second order in the name  of reviewing its own judgment.  In fact the learned counsel for the  appellant did not address us on this very vital aspect. 26.     Under the circumstances, for the reasons shown above, we are  of the clear opinion that the appeals have no merits and must be  dismissed.  It is accordingly ordered to be dismissed.  We, however,  pass no order as to costs.