MAHARASHTRA FOREST GUARDS AND FORESTERS UNION versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
[2017] 14 S.C.R. 446, Supreme Court of India, 2017
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
[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 one class for the purpose of 
participation in the LDCE, a further classification between H
448 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 14 S.C.R. 
A graduates and non-graduates for participating in the LDCE is 
unreasonable. It is a case of equals being treated unequally. [Para 
17)(454-H; 455-A-D] 
3. Rule 7(2) of the Recruitment Rules to the extent that it 
imposes the requirement of being a graduate is declared 
B unconstitutional. However this judgment shall not affect the 
promotions already made. But for further promotions, the LDCE 
shall be held afresh granting opportunity to all eligible Forest 
Guards. [Para 18]1455-E] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India (1968] 1 SCR 
185; State of Mysore and another v. P. Narasing Rao 
[1968] 1 SCR 407; The State of Jammu and Kashmir v. 
Shri Triloki Nath Khosa and others (1974) 1 SCC 19 : 
[1974) 1 SCR 771; TR. Kothandaraman and others v. 
Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage BD and others 
(1994) 6 sec 282 : (1994] 3 Suppl. SCR 513 -
referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
(1968) 1 SCR 185 
referred to 
Para8 
[1968] 1 SCR 407 
referred to 
Para9 
(1974] 1 SCR 771 
referred to 
Para 10 
[1994) 3 Suppl. SCR 513 
referred to 
Para 13 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 17974 
of2017. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.07.2016 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Bombay at Nagpur in Writ Petition No. 2464 of2016. 
Satyajit A. Desai and Ms. Anagha S. Desai, Advs. for the 
Appellant. 
G 
Shekhar Naphadc, Sr.Adv., Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, 
H 
K. Parameshwar, Shivaji M. Jadhav, Abbay Sambre, Amit B. (For
Mis. 
S. M. Jadhav And Company), Somiran Sharma and Sandeep Dere,Advs. 
for the Respondents.
MAHARASHTRA FOREST GUARDS AND FORESTERS 
449 
UNION v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A 
KURIAN, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. The short but complex question arising for consideration in this 
case is whether the restriction introduced on the basis of educational 
qualification for participating in a Limited Departmental Competitive 
Examination (hereinafter referred to as "LDCE") violates Articles 14 
B 
and 16 of the Constitution of India. 
3. Undisputed facts of the case: The educational qualification for 
appointment to the post of Forest Guard in the Forester, Forest Guard, 
Ranger-Surveyor, Surveyor; Head Clerk, Accountant and Clerk-cum-
Typist (Recruitment) Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "the c 
Recruitment Rules") is Higher See-0ndary School Certificate (hereinafter 
referred to as "HSSC"). It is a feeder category for promotion to the post 
of Forester. The relevant part of the Recruitment Rules, as amended in 
2013, read as follows: 
"Rule -7. (1) Appointment to the post of Forester in the Forest D 
Department shall be made either:-
( a) by promotion of a suitable person from amongst the persons 
holding the post of Forest Guard on the basis of seniority as 
rurr the circle gradation list and subject to fitness, having not 
less than three years regular service in that post; or 
(b) By selection of a suitable person from amongst the persons 
holding the post ofF orest Guard, on the basis of common merit 
E 
list prepared by the
Additional Principal Chief Conservator of 
Forests (Administration Subordinate Cadre), Maharashtra 
State, Nagpur, on the basis of result of the "Limited 
Departmental Competitive Examination", conducted by the 
F 
Chief Conservator of Forests (Education and Training), Punc 
on the basis of rules made for the Limited Departmental 
Competitive Examination by the Government, from time to time. 
(2) For appearing in the examination the candidates shall, -
(a) have completed five years ofrcgular service as Forest Guard 
G 
in the Forest Department; 
(b) possess a degree of a statutory university or any other 
qualification declared by the Government to be equivalent 
thereto;" 
(Emphasis supplied) 
H
450 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 14 S.C.R. 
A 
4. By the amendment introduced in the Recruitment Rules, 75 per 
cent of the posts in the ·category of Forester are to be filled up on the 
basis of seniority-cum-fitness (Rule 7(1 )(a)). The remaining 25 per cent 
is to be filled up on the basis of the LDCE (Rule 7(1 )(b )). 
5. Two main conditions have been prescribed to participate in the 
B competitive examination - (i) the candidate should have completed 
minimum five years of service as Forest Guard and (ii) the candidate 
should be a graduate. It is the contention of the appellant that as far as 
the first condition is concerned, the Department is well within its 
competence to prescribe eligibility of minimum experience for a Forest 
c Guard to get promoted as Forester even on the basis of the competitive 
examination since the post of Forester requires experience in service 
and exposure in the field. However, introducing a further restriction on 
the basis of educational qualification to participate in the LDCE is 
discriminatory. 
-
6. The contention of Shri Shekhar Naphade, learned Senior 
D Counsel appearing for the State is that the whole purpose behind the 
amendment was to introduce young blood in the post of Forester where 
they have to undertake physically challenging responsibilities as well, 
and that is why preference is sought to be given to graduates. Laudable 
may be the object but the implementation of the policy behind the object 
E can only be in
accordance with law. If the young graduates are otherwise 
intellectually sharp and educationally proficient, they would prove to be 
more meritorious in the competitive LDCE. As the Rules now stand, 
opportunity has to be thrown open to the youngsters who are non-
graduates also in the seniority list but who have completed the required 
number of years of service and yet are otherwise alert, efficient and 
F proficient. Denial of the same would certainly be violative of Articles 14 
and I 6 of the Constitution. 
7. We are afraid, the reference made by the learned Senior Counsel 
to the Constitution Bench decisions of this Court is ofno avail. There is 
no quarrel with the well-settled proposition that there can be a 
G classification based on the educational qualification if so warranted by 
the circumstances. But that is not what has been done in the present 
case. Based on the educational qualification, a class within a class has 
been created violating the guarantee of equality by restricting the 
participation in the LDCE only to graduates. 
H
\ 
MAHARASHTRA FOREST GUARDS AND FORESTERS 
451 
UNION v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [KURIAN, J.] 
8. The Constitution Bench Judgment of this Court in Roshan Lal A 
Tandon v. Union oflndia1, is a case where direct recruits i.e. apprentice 
train ·examiner, and promotces i.e. skilled artisans were integrated into 
one group as Grade-'D'. Thereafrer, 80 per cent vacancies in Grade-
'C' were to be filled up from class of apprentice train examiners and the 
remaining 20 per cent from among the train examinci:s on the basis of B 
selection. That was held to be bad on the ground that "once the direct 
recruits and promotees are absorbed in one cadre. they form one 
class and they cannot be discriminated for the purpose of further 
promotion to the higher grade- 'C "'. 
· 
9. In State of Mysore and another v. P. Narasing Rao2, the 
same Constitution Bench held the higher qualification ofS.S.L.C. to be 
C 
a relevant consideration for fixing higher pay-scale than that of non-
matriculate tracers. That classification, on the basis ofhililherqualification, 
was upheld. 
10. The State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Shri Triloki Nath 
Khosa and others3 is a later Constitution Bench decision of 1973 where 
D 
Roshan Lal (supra) and Narsing Rao (supra) have been discussed. 
The question posed in Triloki Nath Khosa (supra) is as follows - "if 
persons drawn from different sources are integrated into one Class. 
can they he classified for purposes of promotion on the basis of 
their educational
qualzfications? ". That was answered in the 
E 
affirmative. This was a case where promotion from the integrated cadre 
of Assistant Engineers to Executive Engineers was limited to persons 
possessing a Bachelors Degree in Engineering or equivalent-with seven 
years service. It was held : 
"31. Classification, however, is fraught with the danger that it 
may produce artificial inequalities and therefore, the right to classity 
is hedged in with salient restraints; or else, the guarantee of equality 
will be submerged in class legislation masquerading as laws meant 
to govern well marked classes characterized by different and 
distinct attainments. Classification, therefore, must be truly founded 
F 
on substantial differences which distinguish persons grouped G 
together from those left out of the group and such differential 
'attributes must bear a just and rational relation to the object sought 
to be achieved. 
I (1968) 1 SCR 185 
2 (1968) 1SCR407 
' (1974) 1 sec 19 
H
452 
A 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 14 S.C.R. 
xxx 
xxx 
xxx 
xxx 
50. We are therefore of the opinion that though persons appointed 
directly and by promotion were integrated into a common class of 
Assistant Engineers, they could, for purposes of promotion to the 
cadre of Executive Engineers, be classified on the basis of 
B 
educational qualifications. The Rule providing that graduates shall 
be eligible for such promotion to the exclusion of diploma-holders 
does not violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and must 
be upheld." 
11. There was also no sub-classification as in the instant case. 
c Having upheld the Rule, it was further held at paragraph-51 as follows: 
D 
E 
"51. But we hope that this judgment will not be construed as a 
. charter for making minute and microcosmic classifications. 
Excellence is, or ought to be, the goal of all good governments 
and excellence and equality are not friendly bed-fellows. A 
pragmatic approach has therefore to be adopted in order to 
harmonize the requirements of public services 'With the aspirations 
of public servants. But let us not evolve, through imperceptible 
extensions, a theory of classification which may subvert, perhaps 
submerge, the precious guarantee of equality. The eminent spirit 
of an ideal society is equality and so we must not be left to ask in 
wonderment: What after all is the operational residue of equality 
and equal opportunity?" 
(Emphasis supplied) 
12. The concurring words of Krishna
Iyer, J. at paragraphs-57 
F and 58 are also relevant: 
G 
H 
"57. Mini-classifications based on micro-distinctions are false to 
our egalitarian faith and only substantial and straightforward 
classifications plainly promoting relevant goals can have 
constitutional validity. To overdo classification is to undo equality. 
If in this case Govenunent had prescribed that only those degree 
holders who had secured over 70 per cent marks could become 
Chief Engineers and those with 60 per cent alone be eligible to be 
Superintending Engineers or that foreign degrees would be 
preferred we would have unhesitatingly voided it.
\ 
MAHARASHTRA FOREST GUARDS AND FORESTERS 
f' ". 
. 453 
UNION v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [KURIAN, J.] 
"58. The role of classification may well recede in the long run, 
A 
and the finer emphasis on broader equalities implicit in the 
,,,. :i • 
concluding thought of the leadingjudgment will abide. The decision 
in this case should not- and does not- imply that by an undue 
accent on qualifications the Administration can cut back on the 
larger tryst of cqualitarianism or may hijack the founding and 
B 
fighting faith of social justice into the enemy camp of intellectual 
domination by an elite. The Court, in extreme cases, has to be the 
· sentinel on the qui"vive." 
(Emphasis supplied) 
It may be seen that it is a case where promotion to the' post of C 
Executive Engineer and above was wholly assigned to graduates, a 
classification based on educational qualification. There is no such 
reservation or even a quota reserved for graduates in the instant case. 
13. T.R. Kothandaraman and others v. Tamil Nadu Water 
Supply and Drainage BD and others4 discussed all the previous D 
judgments on classification and held at paragraph-13 as follows: 
"13. The aforesaid bird's-eye view of important decisions of this 
Court on the question of prescribing quota in promotion to higher 
post based on the educational qualification makes it clear that 
such a qualification can in certain cases be a valid basis of E 
classification; and the classification need not be relatable only to 
the
eligibility criteria, but to restrictions in promotion as well. Further, 
even if in a case the classification would not be acceptable to the 
court on principle, it would, before pronouncing its judgment, bear 
in mind the historical background. It is apparent that while judging 
the validity of the classification, the court shall have to be conscious 
F 
about the need for maintaining efficiency in service and also 
whether the required qualification is necessary for the discharge 
of duties in the higher post." 
14. Having held so, the legal position was summarised at paragraph-
16, which reads as follows: 
G 
"16. From what has been stated above, the following legal 
propositions emerge regarding educational qualification being a 
· basis of classification relating to promotion in public service: 
• (1994) 6 sec 2s2 
H
454 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 14 S.C.R. 
A 
(1) Higher educational qualification is a permissible basis of 
B 
c 
classification, acceptability of which will depend on the facts 
and circumstances of each case. 
(2)Higher educational qualification can be the basis not only for 
barring promotion. but also for restricting the scope of 
promotion. 
(3) Restriction placed cannot however go to the extent of seriously 
jeopardising the chances of promotion. To decide this, the extent 
of restriction shall have also to be looked into to ascertain 
whether it is reasonable. Reasons for this are being indicated 
later." 
(Emphasis supplied) 
15. It was a case where the validity of the Rule which prescribed 
ratio of 3 :2 for direct recruits and promotees - the former being degree 
holders and latter being diploma holders was challenged as violative of 
D Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It was held that higher 
educational qualification has relevance in so far as holding of higher 
promotional post is concerned in view of the nature of function and 
duties attached to the post. Still further, this Court held that prescribing a 
lesser quota for diploma holders does not suffer from such an infirmity 
E 
F 
as to make a diploma holder totally unfit for holding the post and hence 
the ratio was not "inequitable so as to mock at the guarantee of equality". 
16. The factual and legal position in the instant case is entirely 
different. There is no quota reserved for
the graduate Forest Guard for 
promotion to the post of Forester. Seventy-five 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 o[Forest Guard, on the basis of common 
merit list prepared by the Additional Principal Chief Conservator 
of Forests (Administration Subordinate Cadre). Maharashtra State, 
Nagpur, on the basis of result of the "Limited Departmental 
G Competitive Examination . ..... ". 
H 
17. 
The challenge is on the further rigor put on the eligibility to 
appear in the LDCE. The whole purpose of the LDCE is to encourage 
and facilitate the Forest Guards to get accelerated promotion on the 
basis of merit. Since seniority is the criterion for promotion to three-
MAHARASHTRA FOREST GUARDS AND FORESTERS 
455 
UNION v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [KURIAN, J.] 
fourth of the posts, one-fourth is given a chance to compete in a A 
competitive examination. It is also to be noted that there is no quota 
prescribed on the basis ofhigher 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 
B 
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 in the LDCE without there 
being any quota reserved for graduates will be discriminatory and violative 
C 
of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India since it creates a class 
within a class. The merit of the 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 one class for the purpose of participation in the LDCE, a D 
further" classification between graduates and non-graduates for 
participating in the LDCE is unreasonable. It is a case of equals being 
treated unequally.
18. Rule 7(2) of the Recruitment Rules to the extent that it imposes 
the requirement ofbeing a graduate is declared unconstitutional. However 
this judgment shall not affect the promotions already made. But for further 
E 
promotions, the LDCE shall be held afresh granting opportunity to all 
eligible Forest Guards. 
19. The appeal is allowed as above. There shall be no order as to 
costs. 
Ankit Gyan 
Appeal allowed. 
F