ORDER Dipak Misra, J. As in both the writ petitions preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the order passed in O.A. No. 1161/95 has been assailed, they were heard analogously and disposed of by this common order. For the sake of clarity and convenience, the facts in W.P. No. 2822/99 are adumbrated herein. The petitioners, 17 in number, were recruited as Forest Rangers under the M.P. Class-III (Non-ministerial Service Recruitment) Rules, 1967. The petitioners were appointed as Forest Rangers. While holding the said poss they were sent for training in Diploma Course in Forestry to the Forest Colleges, Dehradun and Coimbtore, which are run by the Ministry of Forest and Environment, Union of India. They had gone for training sometime during the year 1994. On the basis of the aforesaid training they claimed conferment of certain privileges and as it was not given, they approached M.P. State Administrative Tribunal (for brevity 'the Tribunal') for quashment of certain orders passed by the State Government. The Tribunal refused to grant the relief claimed but issued certain directions relating to grant of increments. We may at the outset, say that there was much sound and fury among the counsel for the petitioners and the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State in regard to the prayer made before the Tribunal and the prayer putforth in the present writ petition. But as the factual scenario exposits the sound and fury which created quite a bit of heat and not light, is much ado about nothing, for the simon pure reason, we are only required to interpret a set of rules called M.P. State Forest (Recruitment) Rules, 1977 [for brevity 'the Rules'] and not to get into the maze of facts which have been narrated to create a labyrinth which one has to cross without having any sense of puzzlement. The moot question that falls for consideration is whether by virtue of getting the diploma training in Forestry in the institutions established by the Union of India, the petitioners are ipso facto entitled to the appointment to the cadre of Assistant Conservator of Forest (in short 'ACF'). That being the centripodal question we have to scan the rule. Mr. N.S. Ruprah, learned counsel for the petitioners has taken us, with immense labour, through the details of the Rules and the amended Rules. His trump card is Rule 15 of the amended Rules. That being the centripodal question we have to scan the rule. Mr. N.S. Ruprah, learned counsel for the petitioners has taken us, with immense labour, through the details of the Rules and the amended Rules. His trump card is Rule 15 of the amended Rules. Submission of Mr. Ruprah is that after the rules have been amended and Rules 13, 14 and 15 have been substituted the benefit is automatic. According to him if a Forest Ranger goes for Diploma in forestry, by fiction he gets appointed on probation to the service with effect from coming into force of this amendment. The learned Counsel submitted that unless such a meaning is given to the rule, the language employed in the rule becomes redundant and redundancy has no place in law. It was also submitted by Mr. Ruprah that if this Court does not accept the interpretation canvassed by him, a direction should be given for the purpose of relaxing the rules so that, the petitioners who had struggled hard to go through the course, get the necessary advantage. Mr. R.S. Jha, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State, per contra, has submitted that the 1977 Rules deal with the filling of the post to the cadre of ACF and has nothing to do with the Forest Rangers. It is putforth by him that the post of Forest Ranger is in the post of Range Officer which is in the feeder cadre for ACF. Submits Mr. Jha that Rule 6 deals with method of recruitment and from Rule 8 to 15 deal with direct recruitment and Rules 16 to 23 deal with the filling of post by promotion. To cogitate Rule 8 lays a postulate for direct recruitment by competitive examination. Rule 9 prescribes conditions of eligibility for direct recruitment. Rule 10 deals with disqualification. Rule 11 postulates Commission to decide the eligibility of candidates. Rule 12 stipulates list of candidates recommended by the Commission. Rule 13 deals with training in Forestry. Rule 14 lays down terms about appointment. Rule 15 provides for probation on direct recruitment. We may hasten to add, we are referring to the old rules. Rule 16 deals with promotion. Rule 17 specifies conditions of eligibility for consideration of promotion. Rule 18 lays down preparation of list of suitable officers. Rule 19 provides consultation with the Commission. Rule 14 lays down terms about appointment. Rule 15 provides for probation on direct recruitment. We may hasten to add, we are referring to the old rules. Rule 16 deals with promotion. Rule 17 specifies conditions of eligibility for consideration of promotion. Rule 18 lays down preparation of list of suitable officers. Rule 19 provides consultation with the Commission. Rule 20 deals with select list and Rule 21 makes a provision for appointment to the service from the select list. Rule 22 prescribes the period of probation. It is apposite to state here the amended rules which came into existence on 17-5-1991 substituted Rules 13, 14 and 15. It is apposite to reproduce the said rules: "13. Period of Probation. -- (1) Every person appointed to the service out of the list referred to in Rule 12 will ordinarily be on probation for a period of 4 years. (2) The Government may, if it so thinks fit, extend the peiiod of probation by a period not exceeding 1 year. (3) The Government may at any time during or at the end of the period of probation or extended period of probation discharge probationer from service, if it is of the opinion that he is not likely to make himself a suitable officer. Training in Forestry etc. -- (1) Every probationer shall on appointment be deputed to undergo a two years Diploma Course in Forestry at the Forest College, Dehradun or any other equivalent College as may be decided by the Government and to pass the prescribed examination at the end of two years. (2) Before joining the said College the probationer shall execute an agreement and security bond in the prescribed form. (3) The Government shall bear the cost on account to the tuition lees for the entire course and equipment allowance as required under the College rules. (4) (a) During the period of probation the probationer shall be paid the salary and allowance at the minimum to the time scale of pay as given in Schedule -l and shall also draw travelling allowance as are applicable to officers of his grade. (b) On satisfactory completion of probation the pay shall be fixed taking into account the probation period. (b) On satisfactory completion of probation the pay shall be fixed taking into account the probation period. However, in case of extension of period of probation the grant of arrears of pay will be subject to decision of Government which shall, while deciding this matter take of the fact whether the probationer has diligently pursued the training course/programmes and that period of probation was not ex tended because of any neglect or lack of diligence on the part of the probationer in the prosecution of his training course/programme. (5) A probationer who fails to pass the examination as prescribed by the concerned College at the end to two years shall be afforded two more opportunities of appearing at and passing the same during the remaining period of his probation and if he fails to avail of these opportunities or pass the examination he shall be discharged from service and the terms and conditions of the agreement and security bond executed by him shall be enforced against him. Note.:-- The two additional opportunities referred to in this sub-rule shall have to be availed of by the probationer only during the period of his initial probation and not the extended period of probation. (6) After undergoing training in the diploma course for two years the probationer shall undergo such further training in the State as is laid down and pass such departmental examination as are prescribed. (7) A probationr who fails to pass the prescribed departmental examination shall be discharged from service. (8) On completion of the probation to the satisfaction of the Government the probationer shall be confirmed in the service. Special provisions relating to probationers and persons undergoing training on the coming into force of these amendments. -- (1) Persons who have already been appointed on probation prior to coming into force of these amendments shall continue to be governed by the existing provisions of the rules. 2(a). Such persons who are undergoing training in the diploma course at the Forest College, Dehradun on the coming into force of these amendments shall be deemed to have been appointed on probation to the service with effect from the coming into force of these amendments. 2(a). Such persons who are undergoing training in the diploma course at the Forest College, Dehradun on the coming into force of these amendments shall be deemed to have been appointed on probation to the service with effect from the coming into force of these amendments. (b) The period already spent on training by such persons shall be counted towards their probation and also for computation of their pension and inclusive of this period, the total period of their probation shall be 4 years as mentioned in sub-rule 1 of Rule 13. (c) Other provisions of these amendments shall also to such persons but not amount order account of difference between salary or allowances and stipend shall be paid." We have referred to the aforesaid rules in extenso to appreciate the submission propounded by Mr. Ruprah. It is essential to refer to the order passed by the Tribunal in detail as certain issues which have been canvassed before us were not propounded before the Tribunal. Be that as it may, as the matter relates to interpretation we have taken the burden on us. In the original rules a person after getting selected was required to be sent for training and after successful training he used to get appointment on probation for a period of two years as per Rule 15. In the present rule one is required to go for training in Forestry. On a bare reading of the Rule 13 it is plain as day, if a person is selected he has to be sent for training for two years after selection for two years diploma course in Forestry training. Sub-rule of Rule 14 provides that if a person fails in the departmental examination he shall be discharged from services. Mr. Ruprah would like this Court to interpret that anyone who has entered into the diploma course in forest training would be deemed to have been appointed on probation to the service. Mr. Jha would like this Court to interpret that this rule only applies to the ACF cadre as it stands in contradistinction to the feeding cadre of the range officers. It is putforth by him that earlier on a person was not directly appointed but sent for training and was appointed after successful completion of the training but by the amended rule he has to be sent for diploma course in Forestry after appointment. It is putforth by him that earlier on a person was not directly appointed but sent for training and was appointed after successful completion of the training but by the amended rule he has to be sent for diploma course in Forestry after appointment. In the instant case we are concerned with Rule 2. Rule 2 lays down that persons who are undergoing training in diploma course at the Forest College, on coming into force, these amendments, would be deemed to have been appointed on probation to the service with effect from this amendment. Sub-rule of this rule further provides that the said period of training shall be counted towards probation and other benefits. On reading of the provisions as a whole, it becomes crystal clear, it has been brought into existence to confer certain benefit on the ACF, who are availing this training. They would not be required to join after completion of training on probation but would be deemed to have been appointed on probation during the course of their training. Thus, training and probation run simultaneously. Submission of Mr. Ruprah is that as the petitioners had undergone this training they have to be treated ACF on probation. The aforesaid submiss ion is seriously opposed to by Mr. Jha, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State, placing reliance on the Annexure-P/9, dated 19-4-1994 which clearly pro vides that if the Range Officers are sent for training in Diploma in Forestry they will not be promoted to the post of ACF but shall be allowed to join in their substantive post and shall be given promotion on the basis of seniority The aforesaid letter of the State Government is in consonance with the Rules. It is so because there are two modes for filling up of the said post, one by direct recruitment through competitive examination and the other by promotion. In this context we may profitably reproduce Rules 17 to 20 of the Rules, as they are still in force: "17. Conditions of eligibility for promotion.-- The Committee shall consider the case of all these persons mentioned in Rule 6(1)(b) above who are eligible for promotion i.e. those with 8 years of service and are confirmed; provided that the cases to be considered will be five times the number of vacancies which are immediately available as vacancies expected in the next 12 months. Preparation of list of suitable officers.-- (1) The Committee shall prepare the following lists: (a) List of eligible persons, i.e. those who satisfy the conditions prescribed in Rule 17 above; (b) List of those persons who are found by the Committee to be suitable for promotion to Service; and List of those persons who are not found by the Committee to be suitable for promotion to the service. (2) The list mentioned in Sub-rule (1)(b) should ordinarily be sufficient to cover probable vacancies in the next 24 months. (3) The selection for inclusion in the list mentioned in Sub-rule (1)(b) above shall be based on merit and suitability in all respects with due regard to seniority. (4) The names of the officers included in the list mentioned in Sub-rule (b) above shall be arranged in order of seniority as Rangers or Officers of equivalent rank; provided that any junior officer, who in the opinion of the Committee is of exceptional merit and suitability, may be assigned in the list a place higher than that of officers senior to him. (5) The lists so prepared shall be reviewed and revised, if necessary after one year. (6) If in the process of selection, review or revision, it is proposed to supercede any Forest Ranger or an officer of equivalent rank, the Committee shall record its reasons for the proposed supersession. Note -- In respect of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe officers under consideration for promotion special procedure as laid down by Government from time to time will be followed. Consultation with the Commission.-- The lists prepare in accordance with Rule 18 shall then be forwarded to the Commission by the Government along with:-- (i) the records of all persons included in the list; (ii) the proceedings of the Committee, and (iii) the observations of Government on the recommendations of the Committee. Select List.-- (1) The Commission shall consider the lists prepared by the Committee along with the other documents and observations received from Government and unless it considers any change necessary, approve the list. (2) If the Commission considers it necessary to make any changes in the lists Commission shall inform the Government of the changes proposed and after taking into account the comments, if any, of the Government, may approve the lists finally with such modifications, if any, as may, in its opinion, be just and proper. (2) If the Commission considers it necessary to make any changes in the lists Commission shall inform the Government of the changes proposed and after taking into account the comments, if any, of the Government, may approve the lists finally with such modifications, if any, as may, in its opinion, be just and proper. (3) The list of officer found suitable for promotion as finally approved by the Commission shall be the Select List for promotion to the Madhya Pradesh State Forest Service. (4) The Select List shall ordinarily be in force until it is reviewed or revised in accordance with sub-rule (5) of rule 18. Provided that in the event of grave lapse in the conduct of performance of duties on the part of any person included in the Select List, a special revision of such case may be made at any time at the instance of Government and the Commission may, if it thinks fit, remove the name of such person from the Select List." In view of the aforesaid, the core question that arises for determination is whether a mere training in the diploma course would entitle the Petitioners to become ACFs. We may pause here for a while. Mr. Ruprah, learned counsel for the petitioners has made two fold submissions, namely, that the letter circular dated 9-4-1994 was not published and, therefore, the petitioners were not aware of it. We are of the considered opinion, such submission is sans substance inasmuch as the petitioners were sent for training at the instance of the Government and there is no circular or any other material on record to show how they will be given promotion. Second submission in this regard of Mr. Ruprah is that similarly situated persons were appointed as ACFs., who belong to the State of Karnataka but a step-motherly attitude has been exhibited to the officers who belong to the State of M.P. Learned counsel submitted that the Full Bench of the Administrative Tribunal allowed the cases of the Range Officers and the matter was assailed before the Apex Court and the SLP was dismissed in limine. Sounding a contra note, Mr. R.S. Jha, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State has referred to us the decision rendered in the case of S. Ramesha and another vs. State of Karnataka and another, (1995) 3 SCC 260. Sounding a contra note, Mr. R.S. Jha, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State has referred to us the decision rendered in the case of S. Ramesha and another vs. State of Karnataka and another, (1995) 3 SCC 260. In the said case the Apex Court set aside the judgment of Full Bench of the Karnataka Tribunal to the extent the law laid down in the case of Rajshekharan (supra) which was the Division Bench judgment of the Tribunal was approved. It is submitted by Mr. Jha that the Rules of Karnataka are quite different than that of the M.P. Rules. In the case of S. Ramesha (supra) appellants therein belonged to the Range Officer, Forest Department of Karnataka who had been sent for training course by the Government of Karnataka and each of them stood first on merit who completed the said training course. In the aforesaid background the Apex Court referred to the Schedule to the relevant rules in paragraph 6. We may profitably refer to paragraph 6: "6. Since the answer to the said question has to depend on the construction to be placed by us on the proviso to Note relating to the provision of recruitment of Assistant Conservators of Forests in the Schedule to Rule 2 of the Rules, that provision, insofar as it is material, is reproduced: Category of posts 1 Method of recruitment 2 Minimum qualification 3 * Asst. Conservator of Forests * * Fifty per cent by Direct Recruitment and fifty per cent by promotion from the cadre of Range Officers. Note : There shall be a preliminary selection of a candidate for Diploma Course in Forestry in a Forest Research Institute or College established or recognized by the Govt, of India in accordance with The rules laid down for admission thereto and the selection shall be made by the Karnataka Public Service Commission: Provided that for selecting a candidate for such Diploma Course, no selection by Karnataka Public Service Commission shall be necessary if, such candidate has stood first in the Forest Rangers College: Provided further that for a period of five years from the date of commencement of these rules, the posts of Assistant Conservators of Forests shall be filled as follows : Twenty-five per cent by Direct Recruitment and seventy-five per cent by promotion from the cadre of Range Forest Officers. * * For Direct Recruitment : Must be a holder of college or institute recognized by the Government of India or possess equivalent qualification. For Promotion: Must have put in service of not less than eight years? service in the cadre of Range Forest Officer including the service f any, rendered as Range Forest Officers Grade I and Range Forest Officers Grade II. * Their Lordships after reproducing the Rules interpreted the said rules and came to hold in para No. 8 as under: "8. The Note in the above provision, if is seen, the selection of candidate to be made by the Public Service Commission does not excluce the Range Forest Officers who will have applied for posts of Assistant Conservators of Forests along with outsiders. The Note, therefore, undoubtedly enables the Range Forest Officers in the lower cadre, who are not qualified to be promoted as Assistant Conservators of Forests for want of the required minimum eight years of service, to become Assistant Conservators of Forests, if they are selected by the Public Service Commission for being sent for Diploma in Forestry in a Forest Research Institute or College either established or recognized by the Government of India, and they secure the required Diploma in Forestry from such College or Institution. Such selection, if has to be made by the Public Service Commission, it has to be in accordance with the Rules laid down for admission to Diploma Courses as provided for in the Note, cannot also be doubted. Hence, the note could be regarded, as a general provision which enables the Range Forest Officers in the lower cadre, who are already in the service of the State to get selected through Public Service Commission along with outsiders for being directly recruited to the higher cadre of Assistant Conservator of Forests. However, if the proviso to that Note is seen, it becomes clear therefrom that a Range Forest Officer, who had stood first in the Forest Rangers College, is not required to go through the process of selection by the Public Service Commission and is entitled to be deputed for Diploma Course in Forestry on the basis of his having stood first in the Forest Rangers College. Indeed, the proviso to the Note requires the Government, without selection by the Public Service Commission, to send a Forest Range Officer, who has stood first in the Rangers Forest Training Course in the Forest Rangers College concerned, for Diploma Course in Forestry in any college or institution, as and when a seat becomes available if he is otherwise eligible under the rules of the College or Institute concerned for admission to such Diploma Course. When the proviso is seen, the object which is sought to be achieved by it becomes apparent, i.e. to make Range Forest Officer, who are sent from Karnataka to undergo Rangers Forest Training Course to compete with other candidates of their batch who will have come from all over India, by fully involving themselves in such training course and achieving top position among them when all of them complete such training course. Therefore, if the proviso provides for sending for Diploma Course in Forestry a Range Forest Officer, who stood first in his College, without selection by the Public Service Commission, it cannot be challenged on the ground of arbitrariness. If by the proviso a Range Forest Officer, who has stood first in the Rangers Forest Training Course in a college is preferred to others who have not taken such first place, the matter of sending him for Diploma in Forestry cannot offend Article 14 of the Constitution as had been thought by the Tribunal while deciding Rajshekharan case, since it is based on reasonable classification which has nexus to the object sought to be achieved by making candidates of the State, sent to a College for Rangers Forest Training Course, evince keen interest in getting the first place in such training, so that the training got by them could improve their efficiency in performance of their duties when they return for work." Thus, from the aforesaid it is quite clear that their Lordships, bscause of the proviso, expressed the opinion that a person who stood first in the Forest Rangers Course in a College, is preferred to others who have not secure d first rank and as such, it did not offend the conscience of the Article 14 of the Constitution. Submission of Mr. Submission of Mr. Ruprah is that because of the Rule 15 the petitioners become automatically direct recruits as ACFs and they need not to go through the process of promotional or direct recruitment as engrafted in the Rules. He has also placed reliance in Sub-rule (8) of the Rule 8. The aforesaid amended rules might have been some of assistance to the learned counsel for the etitioners if there would have been any rule or circular that a candidal e who undertakes Diploma Course in Forestry would automatically fit into the promotional posts on probation basis. The same is not the provision. As we have already stated hereinbefore Rule 15 is in the sphere which is relatable to the process of direct recruitment. In the State of Karnataka rules are quite different and it confers certain privileges on certain categories of persons. Hence, we are of the considered opinion, in view of different of nature of rules the law laid down in the case of S. Ramesh (supra) is distinguishable. The next plank of submission of Mr. Ruprah is that Rule 25 of the Rules provides for relaxation of rules and, therefore, a direction should be issued to the State Government to release the norms and promote them as ACFs whenever vacancy arises. We may reproduce the Rule 25 of Rules. It reads as under: "25. Relaxation.-- Nothing in these rules shall be construed to limit or abridge the power of the Governor to deal with the case of any person to whom these rules apply in such manner as may appear to him just and equitable: Provided that the case shall be dealt with in any manner less favourable to the person than that provided in these rules." On a bare reading of the aforesaid Rule, we are of the considered opinion, such a concept of relaxation is not applicable to the case of this nature. Hence, we are not disposed to accede to the submission of Mr. Ruprah. Mr. Ruprah also proponed before us as the petitioners had undergone training, some benefit should be given to them. We are only inclined to observe, that as the petitioners have availed training, they will be given due weightage within the parameters of the rules. As all the submissions of Mr. Ruprah, learned counsel for the petitioners are sans substance, we have no option except to dismiss the writ petitions. We are only inclined to observe, that as the petitioners have availed training, they will be given due weightage within the parameters of the rules. As all the submissions of Mr. Ruprah, learned counsel for the petitioners are sans substance, we have no option except to dismiss the writ petitions. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Writ petition dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed