ANUP Vs. PRAMOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question to be decided in this case is, for the purpose of promotion, whether the Beat Forest Officers (formerly called Forest Guards) advised for appointment under the Special Rules for Kerala Forest Subordinate Service,1962, have to be governed by the said Rules or the subsequently amended Rule, which prescribes additional qualifications. The answer to this question depends on the interpretation of the saving clause in the Kerala Forest Subordinate Service (Amendment) Special Rules, 2014, which reads as follows:

(2.) The subordinate service of the Forest Department was originally governed by the Special Rules for the Kerala Forest Subordinate Service, 1962 (hereinafter called "1962 Rules"). With effect from 30/8/2010, the said Rule was replaced by the Kerala Forest Subordinate Service Special Rules, 2010 ("2010 Rules", for short). Later, as per the Kerala Forest Subordinate Service (Amendment) Special Rules, 2014 (for short, "2014 Amendment Rules"), the nomenclature of certain posts (the post of Forest Guard is renamed as "Beat Forest Officer" and the "Forester", as "Sec. Forest Officer"), the qualification for the entry-level and promotion posts and method of appointment of a few posts in the said service, etc. have been further modified. Notably, it is provided in the 2014 Amendment Rules that, for getting promotion to the post of the Sec. Forest Officer, the Beat Forest Officer should pass the following departmental tests; (1) Forest Test for Clerical and Protective Staff (2) Manual of Office Procedure. It is also provided that this amendment shall be deemed to have come into effect from 30/8/2010 [See Rule 2(4)(ii)]. Inter alia, the 2014 Amendment Rues further introduced the above said saving clause as well.

(3.) The petitioners in OP (KAT) 14/2024 were appointed on 10/8/2010 and were directed to appear for training on 2/9/2010 in the Forest School, Arippa. The 1st respondent joined the service on 30/9/2010. The 1st respondent is serial No.186 in the seniority list, whereas the petitioners are ranked in between serial Nos. 158 and 173. The contention of the 1st respondent is that the said petitioners did not acquire the test qualification for promotion and hence the order dtd. 05/08/2022 by which they were given promotion is liable to be set aside. The State as well as the petitioners argue that, by virtue of the saving clause, those who were appointed prior to the 2014 Amendment Rules will be governed by the 1962 Rules or the 2010 Rules, and hence the subsequently introduced clause requiring additional qualifications for promotion will not curtail their rights.