Can Saving Clause In Forest Subordinate Service (Amendment) Special Rules, 2014 Extend To Promotion Of Appointees Under Earlier Rules? Kerala HC Answers

The Court was considering whether the promotion of Beat Forest Officers who were advised for appointment to the post of Section Forest Officer under the 1962 Special Rules would be governed by those rules or by the 2014 Amendment, which prescribed additional qualifications.

The Division Bench of Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar found that the saving clause does not confer promotion rights upon employees appointed under the 1962 Rules or 2010 Rules without acquiring the additional qualifications.

“it can be concluded that the saving clause in the Kerala Forest Subordinate Service (Amendment) Special Rules, 2014, does not confer any right on the appointees under the earlier Rules to get promoted without obtaining the newly provided qualifications", stated the Court. 

Background

The Beat Forest Officers who were previously known as Forest Guards were initially governed under the Special Rules of 1962, which was replaced by Kerala Forest Subordinate Service Special Rules of 2010 with effect from August 30, 2010, which was subsequently amended in the year 2014.

After the amendment in 2014, changes were made in qualification for the entry-level and promotion posts and method of appointments for certain posts in the subordinate service of the Forest department.

As per the amendment, for appointment to the post of Section Forest Officer, the Beat Forest Officer should pass departmental tests including Forest Test for Clerical and Protective Staff and Manual of Office Procedure. It was also stated that the amendment would operate retrospectively, from August 30, 2010.

In this case, the petitioners who were advised for promotion and the state government stated that those who were appointed prior to the 2014 Amendment Rules will be governed by the 1962 Rules or the 2010 Rules and not by the amendment in 2014 prescribing additional qualifications.

Observations

Relying upon precedents, the Court stated that there is no vested right for promotion and promotion could only be made by considering the existing rules.

Court stated, “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.”

However, the Court observed that the 2014 amendment includes a saving clause, which safeguards the rights of employees already in service. The Court further remarked that while the saving clause protects the vested rights of the employees in continuing their existing positions, it does not address their eligibility for promotions.

Court stated, “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.”

As such, the Court dismissed the petitions.

Case Number: OP(KAT) NOS. 15 AND 314 OF 2024

Case Title: Anup V H & Ors. v Pramod A D & Ors. and Connected Case

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 721