Case: Maharashtra Forest Guards &amp; Foresters Union Vs. The State of Maharashtra &amp; Others

3. Undisputed facts of the case: The educational qualification for appointment to the post of Forest Guard in the Forester, Forest Guard,Surveyor, Head Clerk, Accountant and(Recruitment) Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to asis Higher Secondary School Certificate (hereinafter referred to asIt is a feeder category for promotion to the post of Forester. The relevant part of the Recruitment Rules, as amended in 2013, read as. (1) Appointment to the post of Forester in the Forest Department shall be madeby promotion of a suitable person from amongst the persons holding the post of Forest Guard on the basis of seniority as per 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 of 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 theconducted by the Chief Conservator of Forests (Education and Training), Pune 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 candidateshave completed five years of regular service as Forest Guard in the Forest Department;(b) possess a degree of a statutory university or any other qualification declared by the Government to be equivalent. 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(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 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 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.

Court's reasoning:
7. We are afraid, the reference made by the learned Senior Counsel to the Constitution Bench decisions of this Court is of no avail. There is no quarrel with theproposition that there can be a 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.There was also noas in the instant case.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.per cent of the posts are to be filled through the regular promotion channel based on seniority andper cent isselection 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 Subordinate Cadre), Maharashtra State, Nagpur, on the basis of result of theThe 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 toof the posts,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 tomerit 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 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 aIt 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 graduates andfor participating in the LDCE is unreasonable. It is a case of equals being treatedt may be seen that it is a case where promotion to the post of 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.