MAHARASHTRA FOREST GUARDS AND FORESTERS UNION versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2017] 14 S.C.R. 446 · Decided: 03-11-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 14 S.C.R. 446 
A 
MAHARASHTRA FOREST GUARDS AND FORESTERS 
B 
UNION 
v. 
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS 
(Civi!Appea1No.17974of2017) 
NOVEMBER 03, 2017 
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.) 
Forester. Forest Guard, Ranger-Surveyor. S11rvey01: Head 
C 
Clerk, Accountant and Clerk-cum-Typist (Recruitment) Rules. 1987 
- r. 7 - Constitutionality of - On touchstone of Arts. 14 and 16 of 
the Constitution of India - Educational qualification for appointment 
to the post of Forest Guard as per rules is Higher Secondary School 
Certificate - lt is a feeder category for promotion to the post of 
Forester - By the amendment introduced in the Recruitment Rules 
D in 2013, 75% of the posts in the category of Foresters to be filled 
up on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness [r. 7(J){a)} and remaining 
25% is to be filled up on the basis of the Limited Departmental 
Competitive Examination (LDCE) [r. 7(J)(b)] - As per r. 7(2). two 
conditions prescribed to participate in the LDCE (i) the candidate 
E 
should have completed 5 years of service as Forest Guard and (ii) 
the candidate should be graduate - Whether the restriction 
introduced on the basis of educational qualification for participating 
in the LDCE violated Arts. 14 and 16 - Held: LDCE is meant for 
selection for promotion from the entire lot of Forest Guards 
irrespective of seniority but suNect to minimum five years of service 
F - In that situation, introducing an additional restriction of 
graduation for participation in the LDCE without there being any 
quota reserved for graduates will be discriminatory and violative 
of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India since it creates a 
class within a class - It violates the equality and equal opportunity 
G guarantees -
Forest Guards. irrespective of educational 
qualifications, have formed ·one class for the purpose of 
participation in the LDCE - A further classification between 
graduates and non-graduates for participating in the LDCE is 
unreasonable - It is a case of equals being treated unequally -
r. 7 (2) to the extent that it imposes the requirement of being a graduate 
H 
446 
\ 
 
\ 
MAHARASHTRA FOREST GUARDS AND FORESTERS 
447 
UNION v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
is unconstitutional - Constitution of India -Arts. 14 and 16 - Service 
A 
Law - Promotion - Restriction on the basis of educational 
qualification. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. There is no quota reserved for the graduate 
Forest Guard for promotion to the post of Forester. Seventy-five B 
per cent of the posts are to be filled through the regular promotion 
channel based on seniority and twenty-five per cent is ''bv selection 
of suitable persons from amongst the persons holding the post of 
Forest Guard, on the basis of common merit list prepared by the 
Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Administration c 
Subordinate Cadre), Maharashtra State, Nagpur, on the basis of 
result of the "Limited Departmental Competitive Examination . ... ". 
[Para 16](454-F-G] 
2. The challenge is on the further rigor put on the eligibility 
to appear in the LDCE. The whole purpose of the LDCE is to 
D 
encourage and facilitate the Forest Guards to get accelerated 
promotion on the basis of merit. Since seniority is the criterion 
for promotion to three-fourth of the posts, one-fourth is given a 
chance to compete in a competitive examination. It is also to be 
noted that there is no quota prescribed on the basis of higher 
educational qualification. The situation would have been different 
if, in the first place, there had been a classification wherein 75 
per cent of the posts have to be filled based on seniority and 25 
per cent reserved for graduates and again subject to inter-se merit 
in the competitive examination. That is not the situation in the 
present case. The LDCE is meant for selection for promotion 
from the entire lot of Forest Guards irrespective of seniority but 
subject to minimum five years of service. In that situation, 
introducing an additional restriction of graduation for participation 
E 
F 
G 
in the LDCE without there being any quota reserved for graduates 
will be discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the 
Constitution of India since it creates a class within a class. The 
merit of t_he 25 per cent cannot be prejudged by a sub-
classification. It violates the equality and equal opportunity 
guarantees. The Forest Guards, irrespective of educational 
qualifications, having formed on

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.