The saving clause in the Kerala Forest Subordinate Service Amendment Rules does not exempt appointees from acquiring new qualifications for promotion.

ORDER :

P. Krishna Kumar, J.

These review petitions are preferred against the judgment passed by this court on 13.11.2024 in O.P.(KAT)Nos.15/2024 and 314/2014, upholding the order passed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal. The prime question under consideration in the said judgment was the scope and ambit of the saving clause in the Kerala Forest Subordinate Service (Amendment) Special Rules, 2014 (‘2014 Amendment Rules’, for short). This court held that the saving clause would not enable the appointees under the Special Rules for the Kerala Forest Subordinate Service, 1962 (‘1962 Rules’, for short) or the Kerala Forest Subordinate Service Special Rules, 2010 (‘2010 Rules’, for short) to obtain promotions without acquiring the newly prescribed additional qualifications. To reach the above-said conclusion, the Court referred to Rules 13A and 35 of Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 (‘KS & SSR’, for short). The Government and the party respondents filed the above review petitions, contending that there are errors apparent on the face of the judgment, and hence, it is to be reviewed.

2. Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the respondent.

3. In the review petitions, the State contended that the Forest Guards/Beat Forest Officers recruited as per 1962 Rules are not required to pass the test qualification for promotion as prescribed in the 2010 Rules as amended in 2014, owing to the operation of the saving clause. The State further contended that the department concerned had promoted so many incumbents as Forester/Section Forest Officers relying on the saving clause, and none of them were made parties to the original application. It is further contended that, as the party respondents were appointed prior to the coming into force of the 2010 Rules, they are governed by the 1962 Rules for the promotion, and thus, they are not required to obtain the test qualification.

4. Sri. Prasanth S., the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent in the review petitions contended that nobody can claim any vested right for promotion on the basis of the law applicable on the date of his joining in the service, by placing reliance on the decision in State of Himachal Pradesh and Others v. Raj Kumar and Others [(2023) 3 SCC 773].

5. This court had considered all these questions in the impugned judgment. It is worth quoting the relevant portions hereunder:

“5. …………… Therefore, when the Special Rules are modified subsequent to the appointment of the employees as regards their qualification for promotion, the rule in force on the date of consideration for promotion is the crucial one and not the one which was in force on the date when the employees were advised for appointment or on the date of actual appointment to the service.

6. Nevertheless, it is open to the Government to exclude a category or group of officers from the necessity of acquiring the prescribed qualifications for the purpose of promotion, in the public interest. The exact question to be decided now is whether the saving clause referred to above serves that purpose.

xxxxxx

10. However, there is no indication anywhere in the saving clause or the amended Rules that the protection given by the saving clause would extend beyond that limit and will enable the appointees under the 1962 Rules or the 2010 Rules to acquire promotions without obtaining the newly prescribed additional qualifications. The saving clause, thus, cannot be extended to support the contentions raised by the petitioners herein.”

6. This court has arrived at a final conclusion in the said matter in view of the provisions contained in Rule 13 A of Part II of KS & SSR. The State did not raise any question regarding the application of the said provision in the above matter. We also find no merit in the contention that all the affected parties were not impleaded in the proceedings, as this court had only interpreted the meaning or scope