Ananthasubramonian v. State of Kerala — 1977 DIGILAW 241 (KER)

JUDGMENT V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, C. J. 1.The petitioner challenges the fixation of his year of allotment in the Indian Forest Service and his rank and seniority in the said service. He was selected for training in the Indian Forest College, Dehradun in i 946 and after training, appointed first as a Probationary Assistant Conservator of Forests in 1946 and later on confirmed in the post. By order dated 1st April 1966 he was promoted as Deputy Conservator of Forests notionally from 18th January 1964, that is, the date on which his immediate junior Mr. Hassankutty was promoted to the said post. His pay was refixed from that date by Ext. P1. He was promoted as the Conservator of Forests on 10th July 1968 and his promotion to the said post was regularised by Ext. P2 G.O. dated 8th April 1972. In 1966 the Indian Forest Service was constituted under section 2A of the All India Services Act, 1951. The date of the constitution of the service was notified as 1st July 1966 and Rules and Regulations were made under section 3 of the Act constituting a cadre of the service for each State or group of States, fixing the strength of the several cadres and regulating the recruitment to the service and pay and other conditions of service of persons appointed thereto. Clause 4 of the Indian Forest Service (Initial Recruitment) Regulations, 1966 provides: "4. Conditions of eligibility.--(1) Every officer of the State Forest Service who, on the date of constitution of the service:- (a) is holding a cadre post substantively or holds a lien on such post, or (b) (i) holds substantively a post in the State Forest Service, (ii) who has completed not less than eight years of continuous service (whether officiating or substantive) in that Service, and (iii) who has completed not less than three years continuous service in an officiating capacity in a cadre post or in any other post declared equivalent thereto by the State Government concerned, shall be eligible for selection to the service in the senior scale. (2) Every Officer of the State Forest Service who has completed four years of continuous service on the date of constitution of the service shall be eligible for selection to the service in the junior scale. * * * * " (the rest of the rule omitted as not material). (2) Every Officer of the State Forest Service who has completed four years of continuous service on the date of constitution of the service shall be eligible for selection to the service in the junior scale. * * * * " (the rest of the rule omitted as not material). Under R.4 of the Indian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1966, the Central Government is to recruit to the service as soon as may be after the commencement of the Rules, any person from amongst the members of the State Forest Service adjudged suitable in accordance with such regulations as the Government may make in consultation with the State Governments and the Commission. Under sub-r.(2) of R.4 of the above rules, the subsequent recruitment to the service shall be (a) by a competitive examination; (aa) by selection of persons from amongst the Emergency Commissioned Officers and Short Service Commissioned Officers of the Armed Forces, etc.; and (b) by promotion of substantive members of the State Forest Service. The number of persons to be recruited by each method and the methods of recruitment during any particular period, were to be determined by the Central Government in consultation with the Commission. Under R.8, the recruitment by promotion shall be from amongst the substantive members of the State Forest Service, on the recommendations of the State Government and in consultation with the Commission and in accordance with such regulations as the Central Government may make after consultation with the State Governments. As envisaged by the above rule, the Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966, had been framed. Under Regulation 2(b) of the said regulations, a 'cadre post' is defined as any of the posts defined in the Regulations made under sub-r.(1) of R.4 of the Indian Forest Services (Cadre) Rules. In 1966, at the time of the initial constitution of the Indian Forest Service, the petitioner was not selected, but respondents 3 to 19 were. The 20th respondent was selected by direct recruitment and became a Deputy Conservator of Forests in 1970. From Kerala, the petitioner was the only one recruited by promotion to the Indian Forest Service, and appointed by Ext. P4 dated 18th January 1974 to that Service against a vacancy in the senior time scale. Under the Indian Forest Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1968, the petitioner's year of allotment was fixed as1968 by Ext. From Kerala, the petitioner was the only one recruited by promotion to the Indian Forest Service, and appointed by Ext. P4 dated 18th January 1974 to that Service against a vacancy in the senior time scale. Under the Indian Forest Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1968, the petitioner's year of allotment was fixed as1968 by Ext. P7 letter dated 20th September 1974 and the necessary amendments were directed to be carried out in the Gradation List. This was under the provisions of R.3(2)(c) of the Indian Forest Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1968. The Rule, in so far as the same is relevant may be quoted: "3. Assignment of year of allotment.-- (1) Every officer shall be assigned a year of allotment in accordance with provisions hereinafter contained in this rule. (2) The year of allotment of an officer appointed to the service shall be -- * * * * (c) where an officer is appointed to the service by promotion in accordance with R.8 of the Recruitment Rules, the year of allotment of the juniormost among the officers recruited to the service in accordance with R.7 or if no such officer is available the year of allotment of the juniormost among the officers recruited to the service in accordance with R.4(1) of these rules who officiated continuously in a senior post from a date earlier than the date of commencement of such officiation by the former: Provided that seniority of officers who are substantively holding the post of a Conservator of Forests or a higher post on the date of constitution of the service and are not adjudged suitable by the Special Selection Board in accordance with the Indian Forest Service (Initial Recruitment) Regulations, 1966, but who may later on be appointed to the service under R.8 of the Recruitment Rules shall be determined ad hoc by the Central Government in consultation with the State Government concerned and the Commission. Explanation 1.-- In respect of an officer appointed to the service by promotion in accordance with sub-r.(1) of R.8 of the Recruitment Rules, the period of his continuous officiation in a senior post shall, for the purposes of determination of his seniority, count only from the date of the inclusion of his name in the Select List, or from the date of his officiating appointment to such senior post, whichever is later. Explanation 2.-- An officer shall be deemed to have officiated continuously in a senior post from a certain date if during the period from that date to the date of his confirmation in the senior grade he continues to hold without any break or reversion a senior post otherwise than as a purely temporary or local arrangement. * * * * " (the rest of the rule is not material) R.2(g) of the above rules defines 'Senior post' as follows: " 'Senior post' means a post included and specified under item 1 of the cadre of each State in the Schedule to the Indian Forest Service (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regulations, 1966, and includes -- a post included in the number of posts specified in items 2 and 5 of the said cadre, when held on senior scale of pay, by an officer recruited to the service in accordance with sub-r.(1) of R.4 or R.7 of the Recruitment Rules; " By G.S.R. dated 18th October 1969 a new proviso was inserted after Explanation 1 to clause (c) of sub-r.(2) of R.3, as follows: "2. In the Indian Forest Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1968, in Explanation 1 to clause (c) of sub-r.(2) of R.3 the following proviso shall be inserted, namely:- Provided that where an officer is appointed to the Service by promotion under R.8 of the Recruitment Rules on the basis of his name having been included in the first select list prepared by the Selection Committee constituted under regulation 3 of the Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966 the period of his continuous officiation in a senior post or post declared equivalent thereto prior to the date of the inclusion of his name in the first select list shall also count, if such officiation is approved by the Central Government in consultation with the Commission." Turning now to the Indian Forest Service (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regulations, 1966, for Kerala, three posts are mentioned as senior posts, namely, the Chief Conservator of Forests, Conservators of Forests and Deputy Conservators of Forests. Under the Indian Forest Service (Cadre) Rules, 1966, a 'cadre post' is defined as one specified as such in the Regulations made under sub-r.(1) of R.4. R.4(1) provides for determination of cadre strength by regulations by the Central Government in consultation with the State Governments. Under the Indian Forest Service (Cadre) Rules, 1966, a 'cadre post' is defined as one specified as such in the Regulations made under sub-r.(1) of R.4. R.4(1) provides for determination of cadre strength by regulations by the Central Government in consultation with the State Governments. Under R.8, every cadre post shall be filled by a cadre officer except as provided under the rules. R.9 provides for temporary appointment of non cadre officers to cadre posts in a State only if the State Government is satisfied: (a) that the vacancy is not likely to last for more than three months ; or (b) that there is no suitable cadre officer available for filling the vacancy. If any non cadre officer overstays in the post beyond three months, a report is to be sent to the Central Government, and the said Government may direct the State Government to terminate the appointment. Where a non cadre officer is likely to continue in a cadre post for longer than six months, the Central Government is to report the full facts to the Union Public Service Commission and give suitable directions to the State Government concerned in the light of the advices of the Commission. 2. In the light of the above provisions, counsel for the petitioner contended that his seniority had to be fixed under the proviso to Explanation 1 to R.3(2)(c) of the Regulation of Seniority Rules, 1968, (newly added by amendment dated 18th October 1969) and not under the main part of the said rule, as was done by Ext. P7. It was argued that on the facts and in the circumstances of the petitioner's service in a cadre post, and his continuous officiation for a long period, as Conservator of Forests, a different content and meaning should, if necessary, be given to the expression 'cadre post' as warranted by the context within the meaning of the definition as given by R.2. The designation of posts as Chief Conservator of Forests, Conservators, and Deputy Conservators of Forests, in the schedule to the fixation of cadre strength regulations (noticed supra) was indicated as a guide for regarding the post occupied by the petitioner as a 'cadre post', or an equivalent post under the newly added proviso to the Explanation 1 to R.3(2)(c) of the Regulation of Seniority Rules, or at least as a 'senior post' as defined in S.2(g) of the Regulation of Seniority Rules. The requirement of officiation in a 'senior post', in the main part of R.3(2)(c) of the Regulation of Seniority Rules and the importance of the two Explanations in the context were stressed. Attention was invited to the gradation list as on 1st January 1977 in which the petitioner was given rank No. 25 with date of appointment to the Indian Forest Service as 18th January 1974. The present post held by him is shown as Conservator of Forests, Working Plan and Research Circle, Trivandrum, the date of appointment to the post as 23rd April 1975, the pay as Rs. 1,450 ; the remarks being that he is accommodated against a post in the State scale on the basis of a decision of the High Court. 3. The petitioner's counsel cited certain decisions of the Supreme Court, none of which seem directly to touch the question concerned in this writ petition. D. R. Mm v. Union of India AIR 1967 SC 1301 was concerned with the question whether the fixation of a date, 19th May 1951, as the relevant date for reckoning the services for promoted Indian Police Service Officers, was arbitrary or not. It was held that it was. The appellant before the Supreme Court Shri D. R. Nim was appointed Officiating Superintendent of Police with effect from 25th June 1947. He continued to officiate till he was appointed to the Indian Police Service against the promotion quota of the Indian Police Service Grade with effect from 22nd October 1955. By that time various Rules and Regulations under the Indian Police Service had been issued under S.3 of the All India Services Act, and in particular, the Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954, had been issued, according to which, the appellant's seniority had to be determined. By that time various Rules and Regulations under the Indian Police Service had been issued under S.3 of the All India Services Act, and in particular, the Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954, had been issued, according to which, the appellant's seniority had to be determined. Under R.3(2), the year of allotment is to be assigned by the Central Government in accordance with the instructions and orders in force before the commencement of the Rules. There was an explanation to the Rule which stated that an officer should be deemed to officiate continuously in a senior post from a certain date if during the period from that date to the date of his confirmation in the senior grade, he continues to hold without any break or reversion as senior post otherwise than as a. purely temporary or local arrangement. In the light of the explanation, the Supreme Court remarked that the Government of India had to determine ad hoc the year of allotment after approving or not approving the period of officiation of the appellant before 1956. The Government of India by their memorandum had given the benefit of services only from 19th May 1951 for purposes of seniority both for officers of the Indian Administrative Service and for State Police Officers promoted to the Indian Police Service. The date represented the finalisation of the gradation list of the Indian Administrative Service. As the same principle was applied to the Indian Police Service, the date was retained for that service also, after consultation with the State Governments and the Union Public Service Commission. The date so fixed had nothing to do with the finalised gradation list of the Indian Police Service and there was no explanation why the same date should apply in regard to that service. It was held by the Supreme Court that the fixing of the date was arbitrary and irrational. The Court observed: "It appears to us that under the second proviso to R.3(3) the period of officiation of a particular officer has to be considered and approved or disapproved by the Central Government in consultation with the Commission considering all the relevant facts. The Court observed: "It appears to us that under the second proviso to R.3(3) the period of officiation of a particular officer has to be considered and approved or disapproved by the Central Government in consultation with the Commission considering all the relevant facts. The Central Government cannot pick out a date from a hat -- and that is what it seems to have done in this case -- and say that a period prior to that date would not be deemed to be approved by the Central Government within the second proviso." (Para 6) We can find no analogy between the facts of the above case and the petitioner's case in the present writ petition, governed at every step and stage by concrete and well defined Rules. 4. The well known decision in Anand Prakash Saksena v. Union of India and others AIR 1968 SC 754 was cited, for the proposition that the appointment of a non Cadre officer under rule 9 will not confer any benefit, and also for the proposition that the filling up of a cadre post by a non cadre officer under R.9 does not infringe any right of the cadre officer, nor does it amount to withholding of a promotion or a penalty. We are unable to derive any assistance from these observations in paragraph 14 of the judgment; nor from the further observation in paragraph 21 that the seniority of the promotee should be counted from the date of his joining the State Civil Service. Related to the actual facts and the Rules and Regulations in question, the case considered was totally different. 5. Ram Prakash v. S. A. F. Abbas AIR 1972 SC 2350 was relied on in support of the contention that there can be a retrospective declaration of equivalence of a post under the State Government to a cadre post created by the Central Government. There can be no quarrel with the proposition. 6. Anil Kumar v. State of Assam AIR 1975 SC 1061 , paragraph 11, was cited to draw attention to an amendment effected to the Rules in April 1967 whereby the power of the State Government to make retroactive declaration of equivalence of a post, was deleted. There can be no quarrel with the proposition. 6. Anil Kumar v. State of Assam AIR 1975 SC 1061 , paragraph 11, was cited to draw attention to an amendment effected to the Rules in April 1967 whereby the power of the State Government to make retroactive declaration of equivalence of a post, was deleted. We are unable to derive any assistance from the principle of this decision in deciding the question of the petitioner's year of allotment to the Indian Forest Service and his seniority; and would prefer to decide these in the light of the concrete rules on which the learned Government Pleader and counsel appearing for the Central Government and counsel for the contesting respondents were prepared to squarely place reliance. 7. Both the Government Pleader and the counsel for the Union Government, contended that the case had to be decided in accordance with the main part of R3(2)(c) of the Regulation of Seniority Rules. Going by the said Rule, the juniormost among the officers recruited to the service in accordance with R.7 of the Recruitment Rules was the 20th respondent, directly recruited in 1968, and the petitioner was allotted the said year. It was pointed out by the Government Pleader that in the initial recruitment, respondents 3 to 11 were selected and appointed with effect from 1st October 1966 and the petitioner was appointed by Ext. P4 on 18th January 1974. In the 1977 seniority list the 20th respondent is assigned rank No. 24 and the petitioner rank No. 25, the year of allotment of both being 1968. This, it was contended, was in accordance with the main provision of R.3(2)(c). Counsel for the petitioner contended that there was no advertence to, or consideration of, the question, whether the 20th respondent had continuously officiated in a senior post from a date prior to the officiation of the petitioner within the latter part of R.3(2)(c). On the construction of the rule, it is doubtful if this part of it would apply to the earlier part which speaks of the "juniormost among the officers recruited to the service"; and even if it would, it cannot be assumed that there was no advertence to this requirement when a list was solemnly prepared, and ranks assigned. We think the learned Government Pleader is right. We think the learned Government Pleader is right. Alternatively, the Government Pleader was prepared to take his stand on the proviso to the above Rule and Explanations 1 and 2 appended thereto and the proviso to Explanation 1, newly added. The contention advanced was that the post which the petitioner was holding, namely, that of Conservator of Forests, Working Plan and Research Circle, was a special post and not a 'cadre post', with a different pay scale. This has been set out in paragraphs 3, 7 and 10 of the counter affidavit of the 1st respondent. Paragraph 10 has clearly averred that the said post was neither a 'cadre post' nor one declared as equivalent to a 'cadre post'. Ext. P4 dated 18th January 1974, the notification appointing the petitioner to the Indian Forest Service shows that it was against the vacancy in the senior time scale shown in item 3 of the cadre schedule. The said vacancy was as Deputy Conservator of Forests. In pursuance of Ext. P4, Ext. P6 order was issued on 25th March 1974 reciting once again that the appointment was in a vacancy in the senior time scale. The post to which the petitioner was posted, namely, Forest Utilisation Officer in the Office of the Chief Conservator of Forests, was that of a Deputy Conservator of Forests. The Government Pleader satisfied us with reference to the files that there was prolonged correspondence between the State Government and the Central Government, citing, in particular, the proviso to R.3(2)(c) and explanations thereto, and that the State Government expressed its view that it would not be possible to declare the post held by the petitioner as equivalent to a cadre post. It was after such consultation and ascertainment and expression of views that Ext. P7 letter of allotment was issued by the Government of India stating that the petitioner shall be placed below the 20th respondent and above Shri C. T. Sivasankaran, and that his year of allotment shall be 1968. Ext. P7 refers to the State Government's letter dated 23rd August 1974. The said letter was read out to us and the files were made available. The same stated that the State Government after referring the matter to the concerned Departmental Head and others could not regard the post held by the petitioner as equivalent to a cadre post. Ext. P7 refers to the State Government's letter dated 23rd August 1974. The said letter was read out to us and the files were made available. The same stated that the State Government after referring the matter to the concerned Departmental Head and others could not regard the post held by the petitioner as equivalent to a cadre post. The stand of the Government Pleader was completely endorsed by counsel for the Union Government, who submitted that there was no approval by the Central Government in consultation with the Public Service Commission, and no declaration of equivalence of the post to a cadre post, in consultation with the State Government. And on the Rules as they stand and the facts presented to us, the submissions made by counsel for the two Governments are correct and we have no hesitation to accept the same. 8. Sri Sivaraman Nair, counsel for respondents 10, 12 to 15 and 19, took us elaborately through the Rules and Regulations bearing on the aspect of seniority and fixation of rank, and called our attention to certain relevant facts. In particular, he invited our attention to a decision of a Full Bench of this Court to which one of us (myself) was a party, in W.A. Nos. 9 and 10 of 1969. The writ petition was filed to quash the State Government's order dated 10th July 1968 declaring the post of the Conservator of Forests, Working Plan and Research Circle, as a post outside the cadre of the Indian Forest Service, and for other reliefs. A learned Single Judge of this Court had allowed the writ petition holding that the State Government should not have created an excadre post and should not also have appointed the 4th respondent in that writ petition (the present petitioner) to the said post without considering the claims of the writ petitioner therein. A learned Single Judge of this Court had allowed the writ petition holding that the State Government should not have created an excadre post and should not also have appointed the 4th respondent in that writ petition (the present petitioner) to the said post without considering the claims of the writ petitioner therein. In the Writ Appeal by the present writ petitioner it was contended that the post created was in fact in the cadre of the Indian Forest Service, despite the statement to the contrary in the Government Order dated 10th July 1968 referred to in the judgment; that the State Government had no right to create a post of Conservator of Forests outside the cadre of Indian Forest Service; and that even if the post was validly created in the State Service, the petitioner's claims as Deputy Conservator ought to have been considered. The court observed that as far as the first of these grounds was concerned, it was unfounded (vide paragraph 4). The reason why the claim was held to be unfounded as thus stated in the opening paragraph of the Judgment: "In March 1967, the petitioner was appointed on probation as Deputy Conservator in the Indian Forest Service with effect from 1st October 1966 -- he has completed the period of probation, bat has not yet been confirmed. By Ext. P3, dated 26th April 1968, the first respondent State Government constituted a new circle in its Forest Department called the Working Plan and Research Circle in charge of a Conservator of Forests, and, among other temporary posts, it sanctioned the post of a Conservator of Forests till the end of February 1969. The order did not expressly state whether the post was to be in the cadre of the Indian Forest Service or of the State Service; but the pay mentioned was Rs. 1000-1300, the scale of pay for the State service-- the scale of pay for the Indian Forest Service was Rs. 1300-1800, having been so fixed by the Indian Forest Service (Pay) Rules, 1968, issued on 16th March 1968, with effect from 1st October 1966. This can leave little room for doubt that the post was created in the State service and the petitioner's contention that the post was really created as an addition to the cadre of the Indian Forest Service, the pay being wrongly mentioned as Rs. This can leave little room for doubt that the post was created in the State service and the petitioner's contention that the post was really created as an addition to the cadre of the Indian Forest Service, the pay being wrongly mentioned as Rs. 1000-1300 in ignorance of the pay Rules that had been issued more than a month earlier, must be rejected out of hand. Indeed, by Ext. P2, dated 10th July 1968 the State Government expressly stated that the post created by Ext. P3 was a non cadre post, meaning thereby a post outside the cadre of the Indian Forest Service, in other words, in the cadre of the State Service, making in addition to one such post already existing, two posts of Conservator, of Forests in the State service to be filled up by State service personnels The post of Conservator of Forests being a selection post had to be filled up on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee, and, pending the preparation of the select list by this Committee, the State Government provisionally promoted the fourth respondent, whom it described as the seniormost Deputy Conservator of Forests in the State service, to the new post of Conservator of Forests in the Working Plan and Research Circle. It is obvious that this promotion was a temporary promotion made under R.31 of the General Rules in Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958. But most regretably, regretable because it leads to so much uncertainty and confusion, Government orders in such matters rarely refer to the provision of the rules under which action is being taken and rarely speak in the language of the rules. Thereupon, the petitioner moved this Court under Art.226............" We are indebted to counsel for the respondents for drawing our attention to the above portion of the earlier judgment of this Court, despite which the present petitioner has raised his claim that the post in question is a cadre post or at least one equivalent thereto. The contention that the State Government had no right to create a post of Conservator of Forests outside the cadre of Indian Forest Service was rejected. As for the apprehension of the present writ petitioner that his claims as the seniormost member in the cadre of Deputy Conservators of Forests, the Full Bench stated thus: "10. The contention that the State Government had no right to create a post of Conservator of Forests outside the cadre of Indian Forest Service was rejected. As for the apprehension of the present writ petitioner that his claims as the seniormost member in the cadre of Deputy Conservators of Forests, the Full Bench stated thus: "10. Turning now to the fourth ground taken by the petitioner, as we have already noticed, he has not been substantively appointed to the Indian Forest Service, and, therefore, is still a member of the State service -- see R.2(9) of Part I of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958. Although absent from duty, the petitioner is entitled to the rights of a member who is present by reason of R.8 of the General Rules in Part II of those Rules, in particular, the right in R.8(b), namely, the right to be considered for promotion. But, as we have pointed out, the promotion of the fourth respondent was a temporary promotion under S.31 of Part II of the Rules which, in certain circumstances, expressly authorises promotion otherwise than in accordance with the rules. This is a promotion to meet an emergency and confers no rights whatsoever on the promoted person except the right to draw the salary of the post concerned for the period he occupies it. As the rule originally stood, no question of considering seniority arose in making such a promotion -- the person most conveniently at hand was expected to be promoted and to be replaced, as early as possible, by the person entitled to the post in accordance with the rules. But, by an amendment to clauses (i) of sub-r.(a) of the rule which (unless it be merely for the purpose of taking power to grant the pay of the higher post to an absent senior not actually working in the post, or to enable him to claim a higher salary elsewhere) seems to be purposeless, even temporary promotions made under that clause are to be made in order of seniority, absent seniors being allowed to remain absent, their promotion to the post in question being only what is usually known as a paper promotion. It is this paper promotion which the petitioner now claims on the basis of the amended R.31." We were taken through the definition of 'cadre officer' and 'cadre post' in R.2(a) and 2(b) of the Indian Forest Service (Cadre) Rules, 1966, and to rules 3 and 4 of the said Rules. R.3 provides for constitution of an Indian Forest Service cadre; and R.4 states that the strength and composition of the cadre is to be determined by Regulations made by the Central Government in consultation with the State Governments, and revised at the interval of every three years. One of the provisos to R.4 enables the State Governments to add for a period not exceeding one year, and with the approval of the Central Government for a further period not exceeding two years, one or more posts carrying duties or responsibilities of a like nature to cadre posts, to a State or Joint Cadre. Counsel for the respondents complained that this provision has not been complied with in the creation of the special post of Conservators of Forests, for the petitioner. He then invited our attention to R.9 (noticed earlier in this judgment) providing for temporary appointment of non cadre officers to a cadre post, and the limitations and conditions under which this was sanctioned. This provision again, it was complained, had been contravened. The burden of these complaints was that the special post to which the petitioner was appointed, could not be regarded as a 'cadre post'. We are impressed by these arguments. 9. Next, our attention was called to the Indian Forest Service (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regulations, 1966. Under R.2, the Kerala's allotted cadre strength was 29, all of which had been filled by initial and by direct recruitments; so that, it was stated that the petitioner's post could not be regarded as a cadre post. Then, we were taken to the Indian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1966. Under R.2, the Kerala's allotted cadre strength was 29, all of which had been filled by initial and by direct recruitments; so that, it was stated that the petitioner's post could not be regarded as a cadre post. Then, we were taken to the Indian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1966. R.2(g) contains the definition of 'State Forest Service' as follows: "(g) 'State Forest Service' means:- (i) any such service in a State, being a service connected with forestry and the members thereof having gazetted status, as the Central Government may, in consultation with the State Government, approve for the purpose of these rules; or (ii) any service in such Central Civil Post, Class I or Class II, connected with forestry, as may be approved by the Central Government for the purposes of these rules." R.4(1) and (2) have been noticed already. The Initial Recruitment Regulations, 1966 referable to R.4(1) of the Recruitment Rules (also noticed supra) were also referred to. We were then taken to the Indian Forest Service (Pay) Rules, 1968. R.3 is as follows: "3. Time scales of pay.-- The time scales of pay admissible to a member of the service shall be as follows:- Junior Scale: Rs. 400-400-450-30-600-35-670-EB-35-950 (18 years); Senior Scale: Rs. 700 (6th year or under) -- 40-1100-1100-1150-1150-1200-1200-1250 (22 years)." And R.8 provides: "8. Pay of officers holding posts enumerated in Schedule III.-- Any member of the Service appointed to hold a post specified in Schedule III shall, for so long as he holds the past, be entitled to draw the pay indicated for the post in the said Schedule: Provided that no member of the service shall at any time draw pay less than that which he is entitled to draw under R.4 and R.5." Turning to Schedule III we find that for Kerala, only the posts of the Chief Conservator of Forests and Conservator of Forests on Rs. 1300-60-1600-100-1800 are specified. It was pointed out that according to R.4 of the Indian Forest Service (Pay) Rules, 1968, a promotee shall be appointed in senior time scale and not in the super time scale. 10. R.2(g) and R.3 of the Regulation of Seniority Rules, 1908 were stressed. The former defines 'senior post' and the latter provides for 'assignment of year of allotment'. We have already referred to these. 11. Attention was called to the Rank List of 1976. 10. R.2(g) and R.3 of the Regulation of Seniority Rules, 1908 were stressed. The former defines 'senior post' and the latter provides for 'assignment of year of allotment'. We have already referred to these. 11. Attention was called to the Rank List of 1976. Item No. 24 therein is shown to be the last of the initial recruits and item No. 25 is the regular recruit, namely, the 20th respondent recruited in 1968. With respect to these, it was stressed that the petitioner will get below No. 24 or below the regular recruit, neither of which was prejudicial to any of the respondents, 12. On the question whether an inferential approval of the Central Government regarding the post held by the petitioner as an equivalent post under R.3(2)(c) and Explanation 1 and the newly added proviso thereto, of the Regulation of Seniority Rules, would be permissible in the circumstances, counsel for the respondents emphatically contended that there would be no justification for holding so. With respect to the decision of the Supreme Court in Anil Kumar v. State of Assam AIR 1975 SC 1061 , it was stressed that there should not only be a declaration of equivalence but also a notification to that effect which was totally absent in this case. 13. Our attention was called to the Administration Report of the Forest Department for the year 1969-70. Chap.5 (page 23) would show that the petitioner's service was an interrupted service, and that therefore, in no event can he claim the reliefs sought for in the writ petition. 14. Regarding the eligibility of a non cadre officer to fill a cadre post, our attention was called to the petitioner having been provisionally confirmed as Deputy Conservator of Forests with effect from 15th September 1967, and of there being no entry in the service record of his having been appointed to a cadre post with the consent of the Government of India in accordance with R.9. (Such entries, it was pointed out, have been made in regard to some of the other officers). 15. These are telling facts and circumstances, with which we have been impressed. 16. (Such entries, it was pointed out, have been made in regard to some of the other officers). 15. These are telling facts and circumstances, with which we have been impressed. 16. We are satisfied in the light of the considerations and circumstances adverted to, that the petitioner's claim lacks force and merit, whether under the main part of R.3(2)(c) of the Regulation of Seniority Rules, 1968, or under the newly added proviso to Explanation 1 of the said clause. We dismiss this writ petition with no order as to costs.