SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, CJI, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
In Re: Performance Appraisal Reports of the Officers of the Indian Forest Service
In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad – Appellant
In the Matter of: Gaurav Kumar Bansal – Appellant
Unnamatla Prakasham – Appellant
Indian Forest Service Association (State Unit) – Appellant
Versus
Union of India and Others – Respondents
I.A. No. 172422 of 2024 [Applications for Impleadment], I.A. No. 172425 of 2024 [Applications for Direction], I.A. No. 172427 of 2024 [Application for Exemption from filing Official Translation], I.A. No. 172429 of 2024 [Application for appearing as Petitioner-in-Person], I.A. No. 179359 of 2024 [Application for Ex-Party and Interim Stay], I.A. No. 290215 of 2024 [Application for Impleadment], I.A. No. 290217 of 2024 [Application for Direction], I.A. No. 105862 of 2025 [Application for Impleadment], I.A. No. 105864 of 2025 [Application for Direction], I.A. No. 105865 of 2025 [Application for Exemption from filing Official Translation], Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995
Decided On : 21-05-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to g.o. regarding ifs reporting authority (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments contesting g.o. compliance with prior judgments (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. judicial analysis of statutory provisions and precedents (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 23 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 4. reporting authority defined by hierarchy within ifs (Para 22 , 24 , 30) |
| 5. quashing of g.o. for non-compliance with judicial directive (Para 40 , 41 , 42) |
JUDGMENT :
B.R. GAVAI, CJI.
| INDEX | |
| (I) | INTRODUCTION |
| (II) | SUBMISSIONS |
| (III) | DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS |
| (i) Statutory Provisions | |
| (ii) Internal Communications | |
| (iii) Legal Precedents | |
| (a) State of Haryana vs. P.C. Wadhwa , IPS, Inspector General of Police and Another | |
| (b) Santosh Bharti vs. State of Madhya Pradesh | |
| (iv) Order of this Court in I.A. No. 776 of 2002 in the present proceedings | |
| (v) Recent judgment of this Court in State of Assam and Others vs. Binod Kumar and Others | |
| (vi) Impugned G.O. dated 29th June 2024 | |
| (IV) | DIRECTIONS |
(I) INTRODUCTION
1. The present batch of applications pertains to an issue as to whether the officers in the Indian Administrative Service (hereinafter referred to as “IAS”) would be a “reporting authority” or “reviewing authority” and “accepting authority” of the officers working in the Indian Forest Service (hereinafter referred to as “IFS”).
2. The present applications basically challenge the Government Order dated 29th June 2024 (hereinafter referred to as the, “said G.O.”) notified by the Government of Madhya Pradesh with regard to writing Performance Appraisal Report (hereinafter referred to as, “PAR”) of the officers belonging to the IFS. The relevant part of the said G.O. reads thus:
“2. Before evaluating the performance of the Divisional Forest Officer (Territorial), the concerned Conservator or Chief Conservator of Forest (Reporting Authorities) will seek a note from the District Collector. Similarly and before evaluating the performance of the Conservator of Forests and Chief Forest Conservator (Territorial), the Additional Principal Chief Forest Conservator (Development) will seek a note from the Divisional Commissioner and these notes shall be considered during the time of Performance Appraisal Report (PAR).
3. Comments by Collector and Divisional Commissioner on performance of Indian Forest Service officers in field positions on areas such as MANREGAS, Joint Forest Management, Forest Rights Act, land acquisition for development projects, mining, district planning committee decisions, livelihood and skill development, district archeological and tourism council, implementation initiatives related to any other development will be sent on a separate sheet.”
3. The applicants have a grievance with regards to the “reporting authority” or “reviewing authority” and “accepting authority” as prescribed in the said G.O. insofar as certain posts in the IFS are concerned. The applicants also have a grievance with regard to the aforementioned paragraphs 2 and 3 of the said G.O.
(II) SUBMISSIONS
4. We have heard Shri K. Parameshwar, learned amicus curiae and Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh.
5. Shri Parameshwar, learned amicus curiae submits that the said G.O issued by the Government of Madhya Pradesh is directly in violation of the judgments delivered by this Court in the cases of State of Haryana vs. P.C. Wadhwa , IPS, Inspector General of Police and Another , (1987) 2 SCC 602 and Santosh Bharti vs. State of Madhya Pradesh , (2007) 15 SCC 273 and the order passed by this Court in the present proceedings dated 19th April 2004. The learned amicus curiae therefore submits that the said G.O. is liable to be quashed and set aside.
6. Per contra, Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh sub
State of Haryana vs. P.C. Wadhwa, IPS, Inspector General of Police and Another
State of Haryana vs. P.C. Wadhwa
AI
The performance appraisal for Indian Forest Service officers must be conducted by superiors within the same department, not by officers of another service, to ensure compliance with statutory provisi....
(1) IPS Officers, being members of an All India Service, would be amenable to 2007 Rules – Merely because they are deployed/deputed to work in State of Assam, IPS Officers cannot be denied benefit of....
Forest Range Officers are not part of the State Forest Service under the Indian Forest Service Recruitment Rules due to the absence of required Central Government approval for promotion eligibility.
Every entry in an employee's ACR, including adverse remarks, must be communicated to the employee within a reasonable period, ensuring the right to contest such entries, as established by the Assam S....
The assessment of public servants must adhere to principles of natural justice, ensuring fairness and objectivity in performance appraisals and providing necessary reasoning for downgrades.
Adverse APAR entries invalid if lacking reasons, ignoring self-assessment, without prior improvement notice, or predetermined by pending enquiry; must comply with transparency guidelines for fairness....
Process of evaluation of an IAS officer, more so a senior IAS officer entails depth of expertise, rigorous and robust understanding of evaluation matrix coupled with nuanced understanding of proficie....
Officers are entitled to Senior Time Scale upon completing four years of service, irrespective of passing departmental exams; their substantive rights are protected.
In service jurisprudence a distinction is made between a "substantive appointment” and an "officiating appointment While substantive appointment confers on the person so appointed a substantive right....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.