JUDGMENT :

DIPANKAR DATTA J.

1. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh¹[High Court], vide its judgment and order dated 22nd December, 2023, allowed a writ petition²[W.P. No. 29304 of 2022] presented by the State of Andhra Pradesh, its Chief Secretary and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests³[PCCF] by reversing the judgment and order dated 12th April, 2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench at Hyderabad⁴[Tribunal], which was under challenge. The Tribunal while allowing the appellant’s original application⁵[OA/020/00628/2021] under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 had made certain positive directions. This appeal, by special leave, registers a challenge to the said judgment and order dated 22nd December, 2023⁶[impugned order].

2. The basic facts are not in dispute. The appellant was appointed as Forest Range Officer⁷[FRO] on 6th April, 2006. He was promoted as Assistant Conservator of Forests⁸[ACF] on 30th August, 2020 and has 14 years’ service left. On 11th January, 2021, the appellant addressed a representation to the PCCF urging that the FROs be considered as “State Forest Service Officers” and to consider the FROs when a list of suitable officers is prepared for appointment in the Indian Forest Service⁹[IFoS] in terms of the Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966¹⁰[1966 Regulations], should officers in the categories of Deputy Conservator of Forests¹¹[DCF] and ACFs be not available in a particular year. The inaction of the PCCF to consider such representation prompted the appellant to approach the Tribunal claiming inter alia the following relief:

“It is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to declare the action of the Respondents in not considering the FRO"s/applicants service as FRO cadre as State Forest Service for consideration of promotion to the cadre of IFS as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art.14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequentially direct the respondents to consider the FRO's / applicants service as FRO cadre as State Forest Service for consideration of promotion to the cadre of IFS and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

As noted above, the Tribunal allowed the appellant’s original application. The operative part of the Tribunal’s order reads as follows:

“By not considering the case of the applicant though he is eligible as per RR-1966 and the 1966 Regulation on par with ACF/DCF is violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution. The applicant coming under SFS, for reasons expounded in paras supra, has thus been discriminated. Therefore, the averment of the respondents that Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution have not been violated does not have the force of logic.

In view of the aforesaid, the OA not only succeeds, but fully succeeds. Consequently, respondents are directed to treat the FROs as SFS officers and consider appointment of applicant to IFS on promotion, provided he is otherwise eligible against vacancies of the appropriate panel year. Time allowed to implement the judgment is 6 months from the date of receipt of this judgment. The time granted is 6 months since the Ld. Counsel for the applicants has submitted that the bifurcation of the posts in SFS between the States of A.P & Telangana is still being deliberated.”

The impugned order has set aside the aforesaid order.

3. We have given a patient hearing to Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned senior counsel for the appellant, Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned senior counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 (writ petitioners before the High Court) and Ms. Ais