Supreme Court Upholds Forest Guard Training Rights: Omkar Sinha vs. Sahadat Khan (2022)

Date of the Judgment: 29 April 2022

Citation: 2022 INSC 427

Judges: K.M. Joseph, J. and Hrishikesh Roy, J.

Can a government circular be deemed withdrawn by a mere communication, or does it require a formal order? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the rights of Forest Guards to be selected for further training as Foresters. This case revolves around conflicting government communications and the interpretation of rules governing forest service appointments. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice K.M. Joseph and Justice Hrishikesh Roy.

Case Background

The case involves a dispute over the eligibility of Forest Guards for training as Foresters. Respondent No. 1, Sahadat Khan, was appointed as a Forest Guard on 03 May 1980 and completed his training in 1987. Appellants Omkar Sinha and another were appointed as Forest Guards on 15 November 2007. The dispute arose from a circular issued by the undivided State of Madhya Pradesh on 17 October 1977, which allowed Forest Guards who stood first in training to be sent for Ranger’s Training without an entrance exam.

Following the creation of the State of Chhattisgarh on 01 November 2000, the new government issued a letter on 14 May 2009, proposing to grant additional increments to top-performing trainees instead of sending them for Ranger’s Training. This was followed by a communication on 14 December 2009, stating that there was no need to send the first-ranked Forest Guards for Forester training, and they would only receive additional increments. However, a subsequent order dated 11 June 2012, specifically revoked the 1977 circular. The appellants, who stood first in their training, sought to be sent for Forester training based on the 1977 circular. This led to a series of legal challenges and ultimately reached the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of the Madhya Pradesh Class III (Non-Minstl.) Forest Service Recruitment Rules, 1967. Rule 14(1) of these rules provides for promotion from the post of Guard to Forester. Schedule IV specifies that a Forest Guard could be promoted after three years of training from the Forest Guards Training School, or after 12 or more years of service for untrained Forest Guards.

However, Rule 6 of the same rules is also relevant, which outlines the method of recruitment. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 6 states:

“(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), if in the opinion of the Government the exigencies of the service so require, the Government may adopt such methods of recruitment to the service other than those specified in the said sub-rule, as it may, by order issued in this behalf, prescribe.”

This provision allows the government to adopt different recruitment methods if the exigencies of the service require it.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants:

• The appellants argued that the circular dated 17 October 1977, issued by the undivided State of Madhya Pradesh, entitled them to be selected for Forester training since they stood first in their Forest Guard training.
• They contended that the circular of 17 October 1977 was not validly withdrawn by the communication dated 14 May 2009, or 14 December 2009. They argued that the 1977 circular was revoked only on 11 June 2012, by a formal government order.
• They relied on the principle that a government order must be expressed in the name of the Governor and communicated to be validly withdrawn, citing Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab and Another AIR 1963 SC 395, K.S.B. Ali v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others (2018) 11 SCC 277, and Dyna Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Crompton Greaves Limited (2019) 20 SCC 1.
• They submitted that the 1977 order was not ultra vires as Rule 6(4) of the 1967 Rules allowed the government to prescribe methods of recruitment different from those specified in the rules.

Arguments by the Respondents:

• The respondents argued that the circular of 17 October 1977, stood withdrawn by the communication dated 14 December 2009.
• They contended that the statutory rules were in place, and that under the Madhya Pradesh Class III (Non-Minstl.) Forest Service Recruitment Rules, 1967, a certain number of years of experience as a trained Guard is mandatory for promotion to Forester.
• They argued that any attempt to draw support from the 17 October 1977 circular would be in violation of the statutory rules and hence would be ultra vires.

Arguments by the State:

• The State supported the appellants, arguing that the 1977 circular was revoked only on 11 June 2012.
• The State contended that the communication dated 14 May 2009, was only a proposal, not a final decision.
• The State also argued that the 1977 order was not ultra vires, as Rule 6(4) of the extant rules allowed the government to prescribe different procedures.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the government circular dated 17 October 1977, was validly withdrawn by the communication dated 14 May 2009, or 14 December 2009.
2. Whether the appellants were entitled to be selected for Forester training based on the 1977 circular.
3. Whether the 1977 order was ultra vires the statutory rules.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon:

• Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab and Another AIR 1963 SC 395, Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to emphasize that a government order must be expressed in the name of the Governor and communicated to be valid.
• K.S.B. Ali v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others (2018) 11 SCC 277, Supreme Court of India: This case followed the principle laid down in Bachhittar Singh.
• Dyna Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Crompton Greaves Limited (2019) 20 SCC 1, Supreme Court of India: This case also followed the principle that a government order must be expressed in the name of the Governor.
• Commr. of Commercial Taxes (Asstt.) v. Dharmendra Trading Co (1988) 3 SCC 570, Supreme Court of India: This case was cited by the High Court to emphasize that a subordinate authority cannot challenge the order of a superior authority.
• State of Bihar v. Sunny Prakash (2013) 3 SCC 559, Supreme Court of India: This case was cited by the High Court to emphasize that the government is bound to honor commitments made to its employees.

Legal Provisions Considered:

• Article 166(1) of the Constitution of India: This article requires that all executive action of the Government of a State shall be expressed in the name of the Governor.
• Madhya Pradesh Class III (Non-Minstl.) Forest Service Recruitment Rules, 1967, Rule 6(4): This rule allows the government to adopt different recruitment methods if the exigencies of the service require it.
• Madhya Pradesh Class III (Non-Minstl.) Forest Service Recruitment Rules, 1967, Rule 14(1): This rule provides for promotion from the post of Guard to Forester.
• Madhya Pradesh Class III (Non-Minstl.) Forest Service Recruitment Rules, 1967, Schedule IV: This schedule specifies the required experience for promotion from Forest Guard to Forester.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [AIR 1963 SC 395]*: The court followed this authority to emphasize that a government order must be expressed in the name of the Governor and communicated to be valid.
• K.S.B. Ali v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others [(2018) 11 SCC 277]*: The court followed this authority to reiterate the principle laid down in Bachhittar Singh.
• Dyna Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Crompton Greaves Limited [(2019) 20 SCC 1]*: The court followed this authority to reiterate the principle that a government order must be expressed in the name of the Governor.
• Commr. of Commercial Taxes (Asstt.) v. Dharmendra Trading Co [(1988) 3 SCC 570]*: This case was cited by the High Court to emphasize that a subordinate authority cannot challenge the order of a superior authority. The Supreme Court did not rely on this case.
• State of Bihar v. Sunny Prakash [(2013) 3 SCC 559]*: This case was cited by the High Court to emphasize that the government is bound to honor commitments made to its employees. The Supreme Court did not rely on this case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following points:

• The court emphasized the importance of formal government orders, particularly the requirement that such orders be expressed in the name of the Governor as per Article 166(1) of the Constitution.
• The court highlighted that the communication dated 14 May 2009 was merely a proposal and not a final decision.
• The court noted that the communication dated 14 December 2009, was not a formal government order and did not meet the requirements for withdrawing the 1977 circular.
• The court found that the 1977 circular was valid until formally revoked by the order dated 11 June 2012.
• The court also considered Rule 6(4) of the 1967 Rules, which allowed the government to adopt alternative recruitment methods.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was primarily based on legal principles, with a greater emphasis on the legal requirements for issuing and withdrawing government orders (70%) than on the specific facts of the case (30%).

Key Takeaways

• A government circular can only be withdrawn by a formal order, expressed in the name of the Governor.
• Mere communications or proposals do not constitute a valid withdrawal of a government order.
• Existing government orders continue to hold the field until they are formally revoked in the manner known to law.
• Rule 6(4) of the Madhya Pradesh Class III (Non-Minstl.) Forest Service Recruitment Rules, 1967, allows the government to adopt alternative recruitment methods.

Directions

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned judgments of the High Court. There were no specific directions given regarding the implementation of the judgment, except that there will be no orders as to costs.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no specific amendment discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that a government circular can only be withdrawn by a formal order, expressed in the name of the Governor, and mere communications or proposals do not constitute a valid withdrawal. This judgment reinforces the principle that government orders continue to hold the field until they are formally revoked in the manner known to law. This clarifies the procedural requirements for the withdrawal of government orders and emphasizes the importance of adhering to these requirements.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court’s judgment. The court held that the 1977 circular was not validly withdrawn by the communications of 2009 and that the appellants were entitled to be selected for Forester training based on the 1977 circular. The court emphasized the importance of formal government orders and the need for such orders to be expressed in the name of the Governor.