AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Manoj Kumar Gupta, CJ
Petitioners are Forest Range Officers, now promoted as Assistant Conservator of Forests, under the Uttarakhand State Forest Services. They are seeking their inclusion in the State Forest Services as defined under Section 2(g) of The Indian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1966, so that they can be considered for promotion against 30 vacant posts of Deputy Conservator of Forests, a service under the Central Government.
Section 2(g) defines “State Forest Service” to inter-alia mean: “(i) any such service in a State, being a service connected with forestry and the members thereof having gazetted status, as the Central Government may, in consultation with the State Government, approve for the purpose of these rules.”
It is not in dispute that the service being performed by the petitioners is connected with forestry and it is specifically asserted in paragraph-6 of the writ petition that vide a Gazette Notification dated 21.09.1995 the post of Forest Range Officer was categorized as “Gazetted Service”.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court dated 22.08.2025 in Civil Appeal of 2025 arising out of SLP(C) No.1253 of 2024 “P. Maruthi Prasada Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors”, wherein in respect of the Officers of the State of Andhra Pradesh working in the Forest Department, the stand of the Central Government that approval of the Central Government can be inferred, has been noted.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have already made a representation for extending them the benefit of the services rendered by them under the State Government for purposes of their inclusion in the State Forest Service, as defined u/s 2(g) of Rules, 1966. He submits that the representation be directed to be decided by the State Government.
Mr. B.S. Parihar, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State and Mr. Rajesh Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India have no objection in case direction is issued to the State Government to decide the representation.
Having regard to the aforesaid facts, we are of the opinion that the State Government should consider the representation and take appropriate decision to sub-serve the ends of justice.
Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondent no.2 to decide the representation dated 26.11.2025 (Annexure-13 to the writ petition), by speaking order, within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of the instant order along with copy of the representation.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.