{"id":234406,"date":"2007-05-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-05-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopal-singh-vs-state-cadre-forest-officers-on-15-may-2007"},"modified":"2017-12-01T15:24:52","modified_gmt":"2017-12-01T09:54:52","slug":"gopal-singh-vs-state-cadre-forest-officers-on-15-may-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopal-singh-vs-state-cadre-forest-officers-on-15-may-2007","title":{"rendered":"Gopal Singh vs State Cadre Forest Officers … on 15 May, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Gopal Singh vs State Cadre Forest Officers … on 15 May, 2007<\/div>\n
Author: V Sirpurkar<\/div>\n
Bench: H.K. Sema, V.S. Sirpurkar<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  1041-1044 of 2004\n\nPETITIONER:\nGopal Singh\n\nRESPONDENT:\nState Cadre Forest Officers' Association & Ors\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 15\/05\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nH.K. Sema & V.S. Sirpurkar\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.\n<\/p>\n
1.\tThis judgment shall dispose of four Civil Appeals, they being
\nCivil Appeal Nos.1041-1044 of 2004, all of which have been filed by
\nthe present appellant.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tThe appellant who is an employee of the Forest Department of
\nthe Andaman & Nicobar Islands comes before us in the above
\nappeals challenging a common judgment passed by the High Court in
\ntwo writ petitions whereby the judgment in favour of the writ petitioner
\npassed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to
\nas “Tribunal” for short) was upset allowing the writ petitions.  The
\nappellant has also challenged the further orders passed by the High
\nCourt dismissing the Review Petitions filed by the appellant.  The
\nHigh Court vide its judgment set aside the order of the Tribunal and
\nallowed two writ petitions, one filed by the State Cadre Forest Officers
\nAssociation and another by the Andaman & Nicobar Administration.
\nThey were W.P. C.T.No.209 of 1999 and W.P.C.T.No.246 of 1999.
\nThe judgment of the Tribunal was itself passed in review whereby the
\nReview Petition filed by the appellant was allowed and the earlier
\njudgment passed by the Tribunal was upset and the Original
\nApplication filed by the appellant was allowed.  The following facts
\nwould be necessary to understand the controversy involved.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tThe appellant, at the relevant time when he approached the
\nTribunal, was holding the post of Assistant Mill Manager (hereinafter
\nreferred to as “AMM” for short) in the Forest Department of Andaman.
\nThe Service Profile of the appellant is as under:
\n“He started his service as a Casual Labour on 12.7.1976.
\nHe was appointed as Draftsman on adhoc basis on
\n20.7.1976 and thereafter as Assistant Constructional
\nEngineer w.e.f. 26.12.1980 and was posted in Saw Mill
\nDivision, Chatham where he continued till March, 1984 in
\nthat capacity.  In March, on the basis of the
\nrecommendations of the Departmental Promotion
\nCommittee for Group B post, he was promoted as
\nAssistant Mill Manager, Saw Mill Division vide notification
\ndated 16.3.1984.  His claim is that thereafter he was
\nposted to supervise the construction work at Rangat and
\nRangat Bay.  He further claimed that he was assigned the
\nduty of supervision and inspection of the Saw Mill at
\nBetapur.  He also claimed that he was also directed to
\nexercise the powers and authority of Assistant
\nConservator of Forest though at intervals.  Thus he
\ncontinued to be posted at Rangat, Middle Andamans as
\nAssistant Mill Manager from July, 1984 to June, 1992
\nduring which period he had also been assigned the duties
\nof Assistant Conservator of Forest from time to time.  He,
\ntherefore, claims that he enjoyed the same power and
\nauthority of Assistant Conservator of Forest and for this
\nhe relied on an order dated 9.12.1993.”\n<\/p>\n
When the petitioner was appointed initially, he was part of the Forest
\nDepartment of Andaman & Nicobar Islands governed by Andaman
\nForest Department (Class I & Class II Gazetted Posts) Recruitment
\nRules, 1963 (hereafter referred to as “the 1963 Rules”) which were
\namended on 3.8.1973.  Both these Rules provide for the recruitment
\nand promotion to the posts of Chief Conservator of Forests,
\nConservator of Forests, Deputy Conservator of Forests, Assistant
\nConservator of Forests, Assistant Mill Manager, Senior Assistant
\nEngineer and others.  The claim of the appellant, as it originally
\nstood, was that in terms of the aforementioned Rules, he deserved to
\nbe promoted to the post of Deputy Conservator of Forests
\n(hereinafter referred to as “DCF” for short).  The basis of this claim
\nwas that his post of AMM was equivalent in Grade-II to the post of
\nAssistant Conservator of Forests (hereinafter referred to as the “ACF”
\nfor short) which was a feeder post for the promotion to the post of
\nDCF.  His further case was that as per the Indian Forest Service
\n(Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966 [hereafter referred to
\nas the “IFS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966] dated
\n17.11.1965 he was entitled to be promoted to the post of DCF on the
\nbasis of Sub Rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Indian Forest Service
\n(Recruitment) Rules, 1966 [hereinafter referred to as the “IFS
\n(Recruitment) Rules, 1966].\n<\/p>\n
4.\tThe 1963 Rules, as they initially stood, provided that there were
\nin all seven posts of DCF in the pay-scale of Rs.740-1150-1250.
\nColumn 10 thereof provides “that the recruitment would be by
\npromotion, failing which by deputation.  For promotion it was
\nprovided that it would be from the Assistant Conservator of
\nForests of the Andamans Forest Department or officers holding
\nposts in an equivalent grade in the Adamans Forest Department
\nwith not less than 5 years service in the grade”.  The other mode
\nof recruitment was deputation with which we are not concerned.  At
\nSerial No.4 is the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests.  The
\nRules suggest that there are nine posts which were Class-II gazetted
\nnon-ministerial posts carrying the pay-scale of Rs.350-25-500-30-
\n590-EB-30-800-EB-30-830-35-900.  Column 7 which provides the
\nqualifications reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
“Essential:\n<\/p>\n
Associateship Diploma of the Forest Research Institute
\nand Colleges, Dehradun or equivalent.\n<\/p>\n
Candidates selected for training at Dehradun will be
\nrequired to possess the following educational
\nqualifications:\n<\/p>\n
Degree in Natural Science, Maths, Geology, Mechanical
\nEngineering or Agriculture of recognized University or
\nequivalent qualification.”\n<\/p>\n
In so far as the post of AMM is concerned, it appears at Serial No.5,
\nwhich is also a Class-II Gazetted non-ministerial post carrying the
\npay-scale of Rs.350-25-500-30-590-EB-30-800-EB-30-800 if the post
\nif filled by the direct recruitment.  However, the pay-scale is different
\nin case this post is filled in by ACF which pay-scale is identical with
\nthe ACF pay-scale which we have quoted earlier, meaning thereby
\nthe AMM post had a slightly lower pay-scale as compared to the post
\nof ACF.  Column No.7 which provides the qualification for the post of
\nAMM is as under:\n<\/p>\n
“Essential:\n<\/p>\n
Experience of timber trade and sawing practice for about
\nfive years.\n<\/p>\n
Qualifications relaxable at Commission’s discretion in
\ncase of candidates otherwise well qualified.\n<\/p>\n
Desirable:\n<\/p>\n
A degree in Engineering or Science.”\n<\/p>\n
These Rules underwent a slight change when they were amended in
\n1973.  The 1973 amendment changed the Schedule in so far as the
\nrequirements (educational qualifications, etc.) for the post of ACF and
\nAMM are concerned.  Now the essential qualifications required for the
\npost of ACF were as under:\n<\/p>\n
“At least 2nd class degree in Natural Sciences,
\nMathematics, Statistics, Geology, Mechanical
\nEngineering, Civil or Chemical Engineering, Agriculture or
\nEconomics of a recognized University or equivalent.
\nGraduate in pure Mathematics, Statistics, must have had
\nbiology, physics or chemistry as a subject in Higher
\nSecondary or Matriculation or equivalent.”\n<\/p>\n
We are not concerned with the other essential qualifications which
\npertain to physique, etc.  We must, however, know that these were
\nthe essential qualifications for the post of ACF.  The pay-scale also
\nremained identical.  Now, for the first time, the “essential” qualification
\nwas provided for the post of AMM which was as under:
\n“Essential: (i) A degree in Civil, Mechanical or Chemical
\nEngineering or Master’s degree in Chemistry or
\nrecognized university or equivalent, (ii) 3 years
\nexperience of timber or sawing practice or both in total.
\n(Qualification relaxable at the discretion of the UPSC in
\ncase of candidates otherwise well qualified).\n<\/p>\n
The pay-scale was now increased and it was Rs.350-25-500-590-EB-
\n30-830-35-900, which is identical to the post of ACF.  However, it was
\nprovided that if the ACF was appointed in the post of AMM, he would
\ndraw his grade’s pay.  There was also amendment in respect of the
\nrecruitment of both these posts.  The relevant columns in respect of
\nboth the posts, i.e., ACF and AMM at the time of 1963 Rules and at
\nthe time of amendment in 1973 are given below in juxtaposition:
\nPost
\n1963 Rules
\n1973 Rules
\nACF
\nPromotion  Rangers of the
\nAndaman Forest
\nDepartment (with 10 years
\nservice in the grade)
\nPromotion  Trained
\nForest Rangers of
\nAndaman Forest
\nDepartment having seven
\n(7) years service in the
\ngrade rendered after
\nappointment thereto on a
\nregular basis.\n<\/p>\n
AMM
\nTransfer, failing which by
\ndirect recruitment
\nPromotion  Assistant
\nConstructional Engineer
\nand Superintendent
\nTimber Treatment Plant
\nand Seasoning Kiln with 3
\nyears service in the
\nrespective grades.\n<\/p>\n
Transfer  Assistant
\nConservator of Forests
\npossessing at least 3
\nyears.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tOn the basis of these Rules, it was contended by the appellant
\nbefore the Tribunal that particularly after the amendment in 1973 the
\npost of AMM became equivalent to that of ACF.  The 1963 Rules as
\nwell as 1973 Rules were still in vogue and, therefore, there was a
\nchannel for promotion to the post of DCF from the post of ACF as
\nwas originally provided and now from the post of an equivalent grade.
\nSince the 1973 the post of AMM became equivalent to the post of
\nACF and, therefore, he was also bound to be considered for
\npromotion to the post of DCF as per the 1963 Rules as amended in
\n1973.  The appellant also relied upon the Gradation Lists from which
\nthe appellant sought to read the equivalence of his post to the post of
\nACF.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tIn his Original Application, the appellant also mentioned the
\nnew Recruitment Rules, viz., Andaman & Nicobar Forest Service
\nRules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the “1991 Rules”) issued on
\n25.7.1991 constituting a central service to be known as the Andaman
\nand Nicobar Islands Forest Service with two grades, namely, Time
\nScale and Selection Grade.  The selection grade was put under
\nCentral Civil Grade A and the Time Scale in Central Civil Grade B.
\nAccording to these Rules all the ACFs working in the Andaman and
\nNicobar Forest Service were to be placed in either of the above two
\ngrades.  These Rules excluded all other State Forest Service Grade
\nB officers except ACF.  He complained against the position that for
\nconstitution of the new service the cases of only ACFs were to be
\nsubmitted to UPSC excluding all other grades under Andaman &
\nNicobar Forest Service Grade B Officers.  He claimed that he made
\nthe representations to this effect, but the same was rejected.  On
\nthese contentions he finally claimed that he was eligible firstly
\naccording to the Recruitment Rules of 1963\/1973 for promotion to the
\ngrade of DCF and was also eligible for inclusion in the list of officers
\nof the Andaman Forest Service for appointment on promotion to the
\npost of DCF specified in Schedule of Rule 5 of  IFS (Appointment by
\nPromotion) Regulations, 1966.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tThis claim was opposed by the State which raised contentions
\nthat there were two channels of promotion in the Forest Department,
\ni.e., Channel of Forestry and Technical Channel.  It was pointed out
\nthat the applicant was in the Technical Channel as Assistant Mill
\nManager with promotional avenue to the post of Production Manager
\nGrade-A under the Recruitment Rules and he could have no claim to
\nthe post on the forestry side and the posts of ACF as well as DCF are
\non the forestry side.  It was pointed out that after the constitution of
\nIndian Forest Service and All India Service with effect from 1.7.1966
\nall the posts of DCF and Conservator of Forests available in A&N
\nIslands were encadred with IFS and recruitment to the above cadre
\nposts was governed by the IFS (Recruitment) Rules, 1966.  It was
\nfurther pointed out that the posts of ACF were of separate cadre of
\nthe State Forest Service and they alone were eligible for induction in
\nthe IFS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966.  It was also
\nstated that the definition given under the IFS (Recruitment) Rules,
\n1966 of the term of “State Forest Service” in the State being a service
\nconnected with forestry.  Only the members thereof having gazetted
\nstatus as the Central Government may, in consultation with the State
\nGovernment, approve for the purposes of those Rules or any service
\nin such Central Civil posts of Class-I and Class-II connected with
\nforestry as may be approved by the Central Government could walk
\ninto the IFS.  It was pointed out that AMM was not such a post as it
\nwas not even concerned with the forestry.  It was further pointed out
\nthat the post of ACF alone was classified as A&N Island Forest
\nService under para 20A of the A&N Ilsnad Forest Service and under
\npara 20A of the A&N Forest Department Code, 1975.  It was pointed
\nout that the post of AMM was classified as gazetted staff outside the
\ncadre of A&N Forest Service along with other gazetted posts such as
\nVeterinary Officer, Accounts Officer, Senior Assistant Engineers, etc.
\nAs regards 1963 Rules, the Department contended that the AMM was
\nnot included as a feeder cadre for promotion to the post of DCF in the
\nRecruitment Rules of 1963 nor was it a post of equivalent grade to
\nthe post of ACF.  It was further clarified that after the constitution of
\nIndian Forest Service during 1966 all the posts of DCF were
\nencadred into the Indian Forest Service and, therefore, Recruitment
\nRules, 1963 had no application thereto.  It was pointed out that only
\npromotional channel available to the appellant was the post of
\nProduction Manager.  The State also raised an objection regarding
\nthe limitation.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tThe Tribunal, on the basis of these, pleadings accepted the
\nobjections raised by the respondent State and rejected the Original
\nApplication.  The Tribunal also, in its detailed judgment, recorded a
\nfinding, firstly that the appellant could not be said to be in State
\nForest Service within the meaning of IFS (Recruitment Rules), 1966
\nand secondly the said post could not be connected with forestry.  The
\nTribunal also compared the posts of ACF and AMM and pointed out
\nthat the two posts were not comparable to each other.  It further
\nobserved that scope for the promotion to the post of DCF, as per the
\n1963 Rules, no more existed after the encadrement of the post of
\nDCF in the IFS.  It noted that there were only 7 posts of DCF, they
\nbeing, DCF (Depot Division), DCF (Mill Division), DCF (Sericulture),
\nDCF (Works Plan), DCF (Utilisation Division), DCF
\n(Planning\/statistics) and DCF (Wildlife).  The Tribunal noted that there
\nwas no other post of DCF besides the abovementioned encadred
\nposts which, as per Rule 8 were required to be filled by only State
\ncadre officers.  The Tribunal, therefore, observed that unless a
\nperson is brought to the cadre of IFS, the cadre post cannot be filled
\nin.  It was also pointed out that long before the promotion of the
\napplicant as AMM in 1984, the post of DCF was taken away from the
\nambit of 1963 Rules as amended and as such there was no existing
\nright conferred by the 1963 Rules as amended in 1973 on the
\nappellant which is taken away by the new Rules.  Because of IFS
\n(Service) Rules, 1966 and 1991 Rules,  the post of AMM could not be
\nmade a feeder post for IFS cadre.  The Tribunal also referred to the
\nRegulations, namely, Indian Forest Service (Initial Recruitment)
\nRegulations, 1966 and Indian Forest Service (Appointment by
\nPromotion) Regulations, 1966 and pointed out from Regulation 5
\nthereof that such feeder cadre has to be the members of “State
\nForest Service” and as per the Rules of 1991, the appellant could not
\nbe viewed as a member of the State Forest Service.  The Tribunal
\nalso took into consideration the argument regarding the Gradation
\nLists relied upon by the petitioner as they existed on 1.1.1989 and
\n1.1.1990 and came to the conclusion that these gradation lists were
\nerroneous and could not be relied upon to come to the conclusion
\nthat the AMM was a member of A&N Forest Service.  It, therefore,
\ncame to the conclusion that even if the appellant was a member of
\n“A&N Forest Department”, he could not be said to be a member of
\nthe “State Forest Service” as envisaged in IFS (Recruitment) Rules
\n1966.  The Tribunal also noted that a new avenue was, however,
\nmade available for the technical post of AMM in 1988 and it was also
\npointed out that the newly created post of Production Manager was
\nequivalent to DCF as regards classification and pay-scales.  The
\nTribunal also gave a specific finding that the post of AMM was not
\nconnected with forestry.  In that the Tribunal noted the promotion
\nchannel to the post of ACF vis-`-vis the AMM and pointed out that
\nthose in the feeder posts to the promotion of ACF were essentially
\nthe persons connected with forestry whereas in case of AMM such
\nwas the counter position.  In that view the Tribunal rejected the
\nOriginal Application filed by the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tThis order was thereafter challenged by the appellant by filing a
\nReview Application.  The Tribunal took a completely contrary stand in
\nthe Review and allowed the Original Application of the appellant.  In
\nthe name of writing a Review Order, the Tribunal wrote a fresh order.
\nThis is apart from the fact that we do not find any reason having been
\ngiven by the Tribunal for reviewing the earlier order.  The Tribunal re-
\nframed three questions for decision.  They were:
\n“(i)\tWhether the applicant was rightly excluded from the
\ngradation list of the Andaman Forest Service for
\npromotion to the post of DCF in view of the Recruitment
\nRules of 1973 as also from the selection list of Andaman
\nForest Service for appointment on promotion to the cadre
\npost of Indian Forest Service in terms of Regulation 5
\nread with Rules 8\/9 of the Indian Forest Service
\n(Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\tWhether the applicant was entitled to seek direction
\nto prepare the gradation list of the officers of the Forest
\nDepartment of Andaman & Nocobar Islands as on
\n1.1.1994 in terms of the prevailing Recruitment Rules,
\n1963 as amended in 1973 in terms of Regulation 5 of the
\nIndian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion)
\nRegulations, 1966.\n<\/p>\n
(iii)\tWhether the applicant was entitled to seek direction
\nupon the respondents to fill up the post of Dy.\n<\/p>\n
Conservator of Forest by way of promotion treating the
\napplicant at par with the Assistant Conservator of Forests
\nin terms of Recruitment Rules, 1963 and in terms of Rule
\n5 of Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion)
\nRules, 1966.”\n<\/p>\n
The Tribunal came to the conclusion firstly that the AMM and ACF
\nwere cadre posts of Andaman Forest Department under Recruitment
\nRules, 1963.  It pointed out that the Recruitment Rules, 1963\/1973
\nwere framed under Article 309 of the Constitution while the Code of
\n1975 was with the approval of Ministry concerned and, therefore, by
\npromulgation of Code of 1975, the conditions of service could not be
\nchanged and if the Code is found inconsistent to the Recruitment
\nRules, it was, to that extent, bound to be ignored.  It further came to
\nthe conclusion that since the earlier post of AMM was renamed or re-
\ndesignated as DCF and since under the new set up there was one
\npost of DCF in the Mill Division of Andaman Forest Department,
\ntherefore, the Mill Division was connected with forestry.  The Tribunal
\nfurther came to the conclusion that the post of AMM and ACF were
\nequivalent and feeder posts for promotion to the post of DCF.  The
\nTribunal came to a finding that if Rule 2(g)(ii) , Rule 4(2)(b), Rule 8 of
\nIFS (Recruitment) Rules, 1966 are read along with the proviso to
\nExplanation I under Regulation 5(2) of the IFS (Appointment by
\nPromotion) Regulations, 1966 which were framed in pursuance of
\nSub-Rule (1) of Rule 8 of IFS (Recruitment) Rules, 1966 and in
\nconsultation with the State Government and Union Public Service
\nCommission, the officers belonging to the category of Rule 2(g) of the
\nRecruitment Rules, 1966 can be considered for promotion to the
\nUnion Territory cadre of Forest Department of Andaman for the
\npurposes of inclusion in the select list.  It was further found that there
\nwas an object of consideration for promotion to the Union Territory
\ncadre for publication of the notification incorporating the proviso into
\nthe proviso to Explanation I of Regulation 5(2) of the IFS
\n(Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966 and therefore, there
\nwas no further notification required for the consideration of the case
\nof the officers belonging to the category of Rule 2(g) of the IFS
\n(Recruitment) Rules, 1966.  it was further found by the Tribunal that
\nthe Central Government had already decided to consider the cases of
\nthe officers including the holder of the post of AMM who fell within the
\ncategory of officers referred to in Rule 2(g) for the purposes of
\ninclusion in the select list of A&N Forest Service  to be considered for
\npromotion to the Union Territory cadre.  The Tribunal in para 16
\nrecorded a finding that the appointment to the Union Territory Cadre
\nposts specified in the Schedule of IFS (Fixation of Cadre Strength)
\nRegulations, 1966 can be made not only from the post of ACF but
\nalso from the Gazetted Officers of Class I & II posts of such service
\nas specified in Rule 2(g)(i)(ii) of the Recruitment Rules having 8 years
\ncontinuous service.  On these grounds, the Original Application was
\nallowed and the Tribunal directed the respondents to take necessary
\nsteps forthwith for the consideration of the applicant’s case for
\npromotion to the post of DCF.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tThis order was challenged by two separate writ petitions, first
\nby the State and the second by the Association called State Cadre
\nForest Officers Association.  These writ petitions were allowed by the
\nHigh Court of Calcutta by a common judgment setting aside the order
\nof the Tribunal.  The Review Applications challenging the same also
\nwere disposed of by a separate common judgment.  These two
\norders have fallen for our consideration in the present appeals.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tThe High Court judgment delivered by the Division Bench in
\nfact consists of two concurring judgments.  Justice P.K. Ray framed
\ntwo questions.  They were:\n<\/p>\n
“(1)\tWhether the Tribunal was competent to declare the
\ntwo posts of ACF and AMM as equivalent posts.\n<\/p>\n
(2)\tWhether the post of AMM under the cadre of A&N
\nIsland Forest Department would be entitled to have
\nconsideration for promotion to the post of DCF which was
\nencadred post of Indian Forest Service.”\n<\/p>\n
On both the questions the learned Judge found against the appellant.
\nOn the first question the learned Judge held that it was not for the
\nTribunal to re-write the Recruitment Rules, particularly when the
\nRules did not provide such equivalence.  Further the learned Judge
\nheld that because of 1991 Rules, it was only the post of ACF which
\nwas made a feeder post for the promotion to the post of DCF and it
\nwas not for the Tribunal to direct that the post of AMM should also be
\nincluded in such feeder post.  The learned Judge also found that
\neven the channels of promotion for the post of ACF and AMM were
\ndifferent and the post of AMM was only of technical nature and could
\nnot said to be “connected with the forestry” and, therefore, the post of
\nAMM was outside the IFS (Recruitment) Rules, 1966 and the IFS
\n(Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966, more particularly
\nRule 2(g)(ii).  The learned Judge also noted that while ACF could  be
\nappointed as AMM, the AMM could not, however, be transferred to
\nthe post of ACF.  The learned Judge clearly found that the post of
\nACF and the feeder post to the ACF were essentially connected with
\nforestry whereas the post of AMM and the feeder posts thereto could
\nnot be said to be connected with forestry.  On this ground the learned
\nJudge allowed the writ petitions and set aside the order of the
\nTribunal.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tA separate concurring judgment was also delivered by Justice
\nS.B. Sinha (as His Lordship then was).  He framed a question:
\n“Whether despite coming into force of 1991 Rules could
\nthe petitioner claim his promotion to the post of DCF
\nunder the 1963 Rules.\n<\/p>\n
The learned Judge took a complete stock of the first judgment of the
\nTribunal and the findings returned therein.  Learned Judge found that
\nbesides the Rules mentioned earlier some new Rules were framed in
\n1988 providing for the promotion to the post of Production Manager in
\nAndaman & Nicobar Forest Department Recruitment Rules which
\ncreated a separate channel of promotion to AMM, Senior Assistant
\nEngineer, Mechanical Engineer, etc.  The learned Judge also found
\nthat by 1991 Rules a new service was brought into existence
\nconsisting of only the ACF.  The learned Judge also held that the post
\nof AMM was a technical post and the post of ACF was forestry based
\npost.  The learned Judge gave a very clear finding that the Tribunal
\nhad exceeded its review jurisdiction in passing the impugned order
\ninasmuch as the Tribunal had failed to point out any error apparent
\non the face of the record.  The learned Judge took a complete stock
\nof 1963 Rules and the IFS (Recruitment) Rules, 1966 and the
\nRegulations framed thereunder as also the amendments made in
\n1973.  The learned Judge came to the conclusion that the post of
\nAMM had nothing to do with the forestry.  The learned Judge then
\nnoted 1991 Rules and more particularly Rules 5, 14 and 17 thereof
\nand concluded that by reason of the Rules framed in 1991, a different
\npost was created whereby the 1963 Rules in so far as they apply to
\nthe post of ACF were impliedly repealed.  The learned Judge further
\nheld that even if it could be held that 1963 Rules survive, they had to
\nbe read subject to the provisions of the later Rules.  The learned
\nJudge, as a matter of fact, found that there was no approval granted
\nby the Central Government regarding the service of AMM as
\nenvisaged in Rule 2(g)(ii) of IFS (Recruitment) Rules, 1966.  The
\nlearned Judge also laid a great stress on the terminology connected
\nwith “forestry” and came to the conclusion that the intention of the
\nLegislature was to take the forestry out from the technical section in
\nrelation to the encadred post.  Further relying on the decision of this
\nCourt in State of U.P. vs J.P. Chaurasia & Ors.<\/a> [(1989) 1 SCC 121]
\nthe learned Judge came to the conclusion that the equation found by
\nthe Tribunal in the post of AMM and ACF was a thorough misreading
\non the part of the Tribunal.  On these grounds the learned Judge
\nconcurred with the judgment of Justice Ray that the Tribunal’s second
\njudgment passed in Review Application was liable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
13.\tShri Rao, Senior Advocate, painstakingly took us through the
\n1963 Rules, the amendments made in 1973 as also IFS
\n(Recruitment) Rules, 1966 and the Regulations made thereunder.
\nOur attention was invited specifically to Rule 2(g)(ii) and Rule 4(1) of
\nthe IFS (Recruitment) Rules read with third proviso to Regulation 5(2)
\nand first proviso to Explanation I of IFS (Appointment by Promotion)
\nRegulations, 1966.  Rule 2(g)(ii)  is as under:\n<\/p>\n
“2(g)(ii)\tAny service in such Central Civil Post: Class I
\nor Class II, connected with forestry, as may be approved
\nby the Central Government for the purposes of these
\nrules.”\n<\/p>\n
Rule 4 which provides for method of recruitment to the service
\nsuggests that the Central Government may recruit to the service any
\nperson from amongst the members of the State Forest Service and
\nadjudge suitably in accordance with such Regulations made by the
\nCentral Government.  It also provides that such member who is
\ncovered under Rule 2(g)(ii) shall be allocated only to the cadre of
\nUnion Territory.  Reference was also made to Regulation 5(2) and
\nfirst proviso to Explanation I thereof.  Regulation 5(2) provides the
\nmodalities in which the selection by way of promotion is to be made.
\nThe concerned proviso on which the learned counsel relies is as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
“Provided that the officers belonging to any service
\nreferred to in Item (ii) of Clause (g) of Rule 2 of the
\nRecruitment Rules, shall not be eligible to be considered
\nfor promotion to any cadre other than the Union
\nTerritories cadre.”\n<\/p>\n
Learned counsel insisted upon us that because of the proviso it is not
\npossible for the appellant to be considered for the promotion to any
\nother cadre than the Union Territories, i.e., Andaman & Nicobar.
\nLearned counsel argues that it is no doubt true that the conjoint
\nreading of 1991 Rules and Rule 2(g)(ii) suggest that it is the post of
\nACF alone which would be the feeder post for the promotion to the
\npost of DCF.  However, the learned counsel relies heavily on the
\nlanguage of Rule 2(g)(ii) and suggests that the language is broad
\nenough to include any other service like the service in the Forest
\nDepartment of Andaman & Nicobar so that even such service is not
\nleft out of consideration.  According to Shri Rao, as per the plain
\nlanguage of Rule 2(g)(ii) no prior approval of the State Government is
\nrequired.  Learned counsel suggests that the words “as may be
\napproved by the Central Government” in Rule 2(g)(i) and 2(g)(ii) only
\nshow that the Government has the power in future to include any
\nother post.  However, the words “any service in such Central Civil
\npost Class I or Class II connected with forestry” would suggest
\nthat every such service in Class I or Class II including the post of
\nAMM would come under the State Forest Service and would be
\ncovered under Rule 2(g)(ii).  In short the contention is that the clause
\nstarting with words “as may be approved…… these Rules” is not
\nmandatory and the said approval is not a must.  For this the learned
\ncounsel relies on the decision of this Court  Land Acquisition
\nOfficer & Mandal Revenue Officer vs. V. Narasaiah<\/a> [(2001) 3 SCC
\n530]  wherein in para 14 it has been held that “may be” means “may”
\nor “may not be”.  In our opinion the argument is clearly incorrect and
\nwould violate the language.  The language is plain and simple to
\nmean that for any service to be included in the State Forest Service
\nwould be firstly required to be connected with forestry and
\nsecondly it has to be approved by the Central Government for the
\npurposes of these Rules.  If we give the meaning as is canvassed
\nby the learned counsel, then there would be no necessity of the
\nwords “as may be approved by the Central Government for the
\npurpose of these Rules”.  We cannot accept the interpretation.  The
\nruling cited by the learned counsel is in entirely different context.
\nThat was the case where the question was as to whether the court
\ncould accept in evidence a certified copy of the registered document
\nunder Section 51A of the Act.  The court simply held that this gave a
\ndiscretion to the concerned court to accept or not to accept such
\ncopies in evidence.  In our opinion there is no significance in the
\npresent provision, i.e., Rule 2(g)(ii) of the words “as may be
\napproved” as is suggested by the learned counsel.  On the other
\nhand the meaning is clearly discernible that there would have to be
\napproval by the Central Government in favour of any service for being
\nincluded in the State Forest Service.  We, therefore, reject the
\ncontention raised by the learned counsel.\n<\/p>\n
14.\tIt was tried to be further suggested that there was no approval
\nof the Central Government to the service of ACFs and, therefore, the
\nrequirement of the approval of the Central Government was of no
\nconsequence.  We have noted that firstly it was nobody’s case that
\nthere was no approval of the Central Government to the service of
\nACF as envisaged in Rule 2(g)(ii).  There is no argument to that
\neffect.  Further the question is not as to whether there was any
\napproval of the ACF, the question is whether there was an approval
\nto the service of AMM and there is a clear cut finding by the High
\nCourt that there was no such approval atleast none which was proved
\nbefore the High Court.  When the language is plain, we do not look
\nhither and thither to interpret the same and in our opinion the
\nlanguage of this provision is extremely clear and unambiguous.  A
\nplain reading of the Rule clearly suggests that there would have to be
\napproval for any service being included in the State Forest Service.\n<\/p>\n
15.\tThe matters do not stop there.  The second contention is that
\nany such service, in order to be included in the State Forest Service
\nmust be connected with forestry and AMM is such service.  Learned
\ncounsel very interestingly argued that we would have to give a broad
\nmeaning to the word “connected with forestry”.  According to the
\nlearned counsel the words “connected with” would broaden the scope
\nand then if the broad meaning of the word is to be given, then it would
\nnot be necessary for the concerned service to be only a forestry
\npost and any other service which would have even a distant relation
\nwith the subject of forestry would be liable to be included in the
\ncategory of “connected with forestry”.  The argument is extremely
\ninteresting, however, lacks the merits.  In order to buttress his
\ncontention, the learned counsel argues that the post of CCF, CF,
\nDCF, ACF and AMM were all covered under the 1963 Rules before
\nthe amendment in 1964.  These were the Forest Department posts
\nand the only reason why these posts were included in the IFS was
\nbecause they all were connected with the forestry.  The learned
\ncounsel further says that at that time there was a promotional avenue
\nfor the AMM to the post of DCF as the post of AMM and ACF were all
\nequivalent grade.  Learned counsel points out that by amendment of
\nRules in 1964, the post unconnected with forestry were added to the
\nSchedule of 1963 Rules.  They being the posts of Senior Asstt.
\nEngineer, Veterinary Officer and Accounts Officer, etc.  From this the
\nlearned counsel says that since the post of AMM was included in the
\nunamended Rules of 1963, it must be held to be a post connected
\nwith forestry and further since the post of AMM which was equivalent
\nto the post of ACF in grade could be a feeder post for the promotion
\nto the post of DCF and as such the post of AMM would be connected
\nwith forestry.\n<\/p>\n
16.\tWe are afraid on both the contentions the learned counsel was
\nwrong.  Firstly, merely because the post of AMM was included in the
\nunamended Rules of 1963, that by itself would not make it
\n“connected with the forestry”.  In order to be a post “connected with
\nthe forestry”, the test would be the actual duties and powers of the
\nparticular post and the qualifications required.  In our view merely
\nbecause the post of AMM was clubbed with the others like CCF, CF,
\nDCF, ACF and was also mentioned in 1963 Rules would not make it
\na post “connected with forestry”.  In this behalf, High Court has given
\nvery good reasons to suggest that the post is not “connected with the
\nforestry”.  It is clear from the facts that an AMM has no duty regarding
\nthe forest, he has to merely run and control the further cutting of
\ntimber which has been brought to the mill.  He does not have even a
\ndistant connection with the forest or the growth and development
\nthereof.  He has no place in the policy making even in the forestry or
\nthe allied subjects regarding the forest.  His duties are not concerned
\nwith the flora and fauna of the forest.  There is a very clear cut finding
\ngiven by the High Court on this issue as also by the Tribunal in its first
\norder.  No attempt was made to show as to how the High Court was
\nwrong in any manner in concluding that the AMM had no concern
\nwith the forest.  No material was brought before us to suggest that the
\nAMM had any such duty directly relatable to the forest.  We,
\ntherefore, confirm the finding of the High Court in that behalf.\n<\/p>\n
17.\tThe High Court while giving that finding has also considered the
\neducational qualifications required.  The qualifications required for
\nAMM in the unamended Rules were 5 years experience of timber
\ntrade and sawing practice. In sharp contradiction to this in the
\nunamended Rules the qualifications for ACF were Associateship
\nDiploma of the Forest Research Institute and Colleges, Dehradun or
\nequivalent with the educational qualifications like degree in Natural
\nScience, Maths, Geology, Mechanical Engineering or Agriculture of
\nrecognized University or equivalent qualification.  In the unamended
\nRules of 1963 these qualifications were not at all there for AMM.  The
\nessential qualifications for the post of ACF, therefore, clearly suggest
\nthat for being ACF one has to have a degree in the subjects and also
\nthe diploma of the recognized Forest Research Institute.  Barring the
\nexperience of the timber trade and sawing practice of five years,
\nthere was no essential qualifications in the unamended Rules for the
\npost of AMM.  The degree in science was only a desirable
\nqualification and not essential one.  In 1973 after the amendment the
\npost of AMM also required the essential qualifications of a degree in
\nCivil, Mechanical or Chemical Engineering or Masters Degree in
\nChemistry or recognized University or equivalent and three years
\nexperience of timber or sawing practice while the essential
\nqualifications for the post of ACF was the degree in Natural Science,
\nMaths, Statistics, Geology, Mechanical Engineer, Civil or Chemical
\nEngineering, Agriculture or Economics, etc.  Therefore, one thing is
\nclear that atleast till 1973 there was no necessity on the part of the
\nAMM to be a degree-holder or to have a degree in any subject
\n“connected with forestry” nor was a diploma of Forest Research
\nInstitute was required unlike ACF.  It would be clear from this that
\nagain in 1973 the degree that was required was only in Civil,
\nMechanical or Chemical Engineering or Masters Degree in Chemistry
\nthe subjects which have nothing to do with forest.  Further, unlike the
\nACF qualifications there was no necessity on the part of the AMM to
\nhave Biology, Physics or Chemistry as subjects in Higher Secondary
\nor Matriculation or equivalent.  This itself suggests that the post of
\nAMM was more technical based than forestry based.\n<\/p>\n
18.\tEven when we consider the Promotion Rules in 1973, the
\npromotion to the post of ACF was to be from amongst the trained
\nForest Rangers of Andaman & Nicobar Forest Department having
\nseven years experience  while for the promotion to the post of AMM,
\nthe Assistant Constructional Engineer and the Superintendent,
\nTimber Treatment Plant and Seasoning Kiln with three years
\nexperience were entitled who have no concern with forest.  This
\nsuggests that the post of AMM was of a technical nature while the
\npost of ACF was connected with forestry.\n<\/p>\n
19.\tThis is further apart from the fact that from 1963 till 1973, the
\npost of AMM could not be held to be a feeder post for the promotion
\nto the post of DCF as it was not a post of equivalent grade with the
\npost of ACF as even the pay scale of the post of AMM was not
\nequivalent to that of the ACF.  We have clarified this position in para
\n4 of this judgment.  It is true that pay-scale was brought on par with
\nthe pay scale of ACF but that by itself, in our opinion, would not make
\nany difference because by 1966 the Rules of the Central Government
\nhad already come on the anvil which provided a clear cut definition
\nfor State Forest Service and as if that was not sufficient, the 1991
\nRules clarified everything which created a new service altogether and
\nincluded only ACF for the purposes of being promoted to the post of
\nDCF which post by then was already included in the All India IFS
\nCadre.  The contention, therefore, that the post of AMM was
\nequivalent in grade to the ACF and was also “connected with forestry”
\nhas to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
20.\tA feeble argument was tried to be raised that the definition of
\n“Forest Officer” given in Section 2(2) of the Indian Forest Act read
\nwith Section 32(a) thereof suggests that the functions of the Forest
\nOfficers include the cutting, sawing, conversion and removal of trees
\nand timber, etc.  The argument has no basis as besides those duties
\nthe Forest Officer has other duties connected with forest and merely
\nbecause sawing and cutting of the timber come within his duties
\nwhich is similar as that of AMM, the AMM will not become a post
\n“connected  with the forestry”. The AMM’s duty is only connected with
\nthe mill.  The AMM does not have to take a decision with regard to
\nhow the trees will have to be grown or cut in the forest and in what
\nmanner.\n<\/p>\n
21.\tShri Rao relied upon the decision of this Court in Mullaperiyar
\nEnvironmental Protection Forum vs. Union of India & Others<\/a>
\n[(2006) 3 SCC 643] and more particularly para 28 thereof.  This
\ndecision perhaps has been relied upon only to show that the term
\n“forest” covers even the water channels, creeks, reservoirs, streams,
\nlakes, etc. In our opinion the decision is not at all apposite to the
\npresent subject.  We, therefore, do not agree with the learned
\ncounsel that firstly the post of AMM has connection with the forestry
\nand in order to so hold it is necessary for us to give a broad meaning
\nto the words “connected with forestry”.  In our opinion firstly the post
\nof AMM cannot be held to be equivalent post to the post of ACF and
\nsecondly it cannot be held to be “connected with forestry”.\n<\/p>\n
22.\tThere is no dispute that by now all the posts of DCF are
\nincluded in the IFS Cadre and there is no post now remaining in the
\nAndaman & Nicobar which would still be covered under the 1963
\nRules.  Therefore, we reject the argument of the learned counsel that
\nif not under the All India Cadre atleast under the 1963 Rules, which
\naccording to the learned counsel still survive, the appellant would be
\nentitled to the promotion to the post of DCF.  We are in complete
\nagreement with Justice Sinha who has held that because of the
\nsubsequent Rules, the 1963 Rules would have to be read as
\namended to that extent.  We were not addressed on that aspect of
\nthe judgment of Justice Sinha nor was that part assailed by the
\nlearned counsel in his address.\n<\/p>\n
23.\tLearned counsel for the State specifically drew our attention to
\nthe 1991 Rules which came into existence on 25.7.1991.  Rule 3 of
\nthose Rules specifically provides the constitution of service and its
\nclassification.  The Rule creates two grades, namely, Time Scale and
\nSelection Grade.  It is further provided that post in the Selection
\nGrade shall be Central Civil Group A post and those in Time Scale
\nshall be Central Civil Post Group B post.  Rule 4 provides for the
\nstrength of the service which would be as provided in the Schedule
\nwhile Rule 5 provides for the method of recruitment.  Rule 5 provides
\nthat 25% of the vacancies would be filled in by direct recruitment
\nwhile the remaining vacancies shall be filled in by promotion by
\nselection.  Rule 5(1) provides that the officers who have completed
\nnot less than eight years of regular service in the category of
\n“Rangers” would be considered for promotion.  The Rules also
\nprovide for physical fitness, vide Rule 10.  Rule 17 speaks of the
\ninitial appointment to the service and specifically provides that the
\nexisting regular incumbents to the post of ACF (Group B Gazetted) in
\nthe Forest Department including those who are under Diploma
\nCourse Training at State Forest Service Colleges would be deemed
\nto have been appointed to the to the service at the initial constitution
\nthereof.  When we see the Schedule, we get the authorized strength
\nof the service and the nature of the post included and we find only the
\npost of ACF Selection Grade and Time Scale to be included in the
\nSchedule.  According to the learned counsel for the State this would
\nmean that the other posts are specifically excluded from the
\nAndaman & Nicobar Island Forest Service.  Once this position is
\nclear, there will be no question of the appellant claiming his case to
\nbe considered for promotion.\n<\/p>\n
24.\tIt was suggested lastly by Shri Rao that till now no domicile of
\nthe Andaman & Nicobar Island has been considered for promotion to
\nIFS and if the appellant succeeds, he would be the first said person.
\nWe cannot entertain this sentimental argument as indeed the
\nappellant cannot be viewed as belonging to the Forest Service.\n<\/p>\n
25.\tThe learned counsel for the State also pointed out that there
\nwas no necessity whatsoever on the part of the Tribunal to review its
\nown judgment.  Even after the microscopic examination of the
\njudgment of the Tribunal we could not find a single reason in the
\nwhole judgment as to how the review was justified and for what
\nreasons.  No apparent error on the face of the record was pointed,
\nnor was it discussed. Thereby the Tribunal sat as an appellate
\nauthority over its own judgment.  This was completely impermissible
\nand we agree with the High Court (Justice Sinha) that the Tribunal
\nhas traveled out of its jurisdiction to write a second order in the name
\nof reviewing its own judgment.  In fact the learned counsel for the
\nappellant did not address us on this very vital aspect.\n<\/p>\n
26.\tUnder the circumstances, for the reasons shown above, we are
\nof the clear opinion that the appeals have no merits and must be
\ndismissed.  It is accordingly ordered to be dismissed.  We, however,
\npass no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Gopal Singh vs State Cadre Forest Officers … on 15 May, 2007 Author: V Sirpurkar Bench: H.K. Sema, V.S. Sirpurkar 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 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-234406","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nGopal Singh vs State Cadre Forest Officers ... on 15 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopal-singh-vs-state-cadre-forest-officers-on-15-may-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gopal Singh vs State Cadre Forest Officers ... on 15 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopal-singh-vs-state-cadre-forest-officers-on-15-may-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-05-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-01T09:54:52+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"38 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopal-singh-vs-state-cadre-forest-officers-on-15-may-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopal-singh-vs-state-cadre-forest-officers-on-15-may-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gopal Singh vs State Cadre Forest Officers … on 15 May, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-05-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-01T09:54:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopal-singh-vs-state-cadre-forest-officers-on-15-may-2007\"},\"wordCount\":7515,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopal-singh-vs-state-cadre-forest-officers-on-15-may-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopal-singh-vs-state-cadre-forest-officers-on-15-may-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopal-singh-vs-state-cadre-forest-officers-on-15-may-2007\",\"name\":\"Gopal Singh vs State Cadre Forest Officers ... on 15 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-05-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-01T09:54:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopal-singh-vs-state-cadre-forest-officers-on-15-may-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopal-singh-vs-state-cadre-forest-officers-on-15-may-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopal-singh-vs-state-cadre-forest-officers-on-15-may-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gopal Singh vs State Cadre Forest Officers … on 15 May, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Gopal Singh vs State Cadre Forest Officers ... on 15 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopal-singh-vs-state-cadre-forest-officers-on-15-may-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gopal Singh vs State Cadre Forest Officers ... on 15 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopal-singh-vs-state-cadre-forest-officers-on-15-may-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-05-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-01T09:54:52+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"38 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopal-singh-vs-state-cadre-forest-officers-on-15-may-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopal-singh-vs-state-cadre-forest-officers-on-15-may-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gopal Singh vs State Cadre Forest Officers … on 15 May, 2007","datePublished":"2007-05-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-01T09:54:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopal-singh-vs-state-cadre-forest-officers-on-15-may-2007"},"wordCount":7515,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopal-singh-vs-state-cadre-forest-officers-on-15-may-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopal-singh-vs-state-cadre-forest-officers-on-15-may-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopal-singh-vs-state-cadre-forest-officers-on-15-may-2007","name":"Gopal Singh vs State Cadre Forest Officers ... on 15 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-05-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-01T09:54:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopal-singh-vs-state-cadre-forest-officers-on-15-may-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopal-singh-vs-state-cadre-forest-officers-on-15-may-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopal-singh-vs-state-cadre-forest-officers-on-15-may-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gopal Singh vs State Cadre Forest Officers … on 15 May, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/234406","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=234406"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/234406\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=234406"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=234406"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=234406"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}