JUDGMENT : B.P. ROUTRAY, J. 1. The present writ petition is directed against the judgment dated 30th August, 2011 passed by the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal (OAT) in O.A. No. 1217(C) of 2008. 2. The Petitioner, being duly selected, appointed as a forest guard and joined as such on 1st March, 1997. He underwent training in Mooney Forest Guards School, Angul for the Session November, 2002 to April, 2003. In the training examination, he secured second position and on the basis of the same, he claims that he should be permitted to undergo foresters training in terms of Rule 9 of the Rules for Foresters Training in Odisha. Since the Opposite Parties did not permit him for forester’s training, he approached the learned OAT which was rejected in the impugned judgment. 3. It is submitted that learned Tribunal has failed to consider the prayer of the Petitioner though another similarly situated forest guard was permitted to undergo such training of foresters in the year 2003. 4. Conversely, it is submitted by the learned Additional Government Advocate that the Petitioner is under misconception of such provision under the Foresters Training Rules in Odisha. It is further submitted that those Rules are not statutory Rules but guidelines only, which has no statutory effect after coming into force of the Odisha Subordinate Forest Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Foresters) Rules, 1998 and the Odisha Subordinate Forest Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Forest Guards) Rules, 1998. 5. Perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that the learned OAT has rejected the case of the Petitioner by observing that the Odisha Subordinate Forest Service Rules, 1998 in respect of the foresters and the forest guards having come into force in 1998, which are statutory Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the guidelines issued in respect of training of foresters and forest guards do not have any legal sanctity to supersede the statutory Rules. 6. It is seen that two sets of guidelines titled as “Rules for the Forester Training in Odisha” and “Guidelines for the Forest Guard Training in Odisha” were issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Odisha from time to time. Thus, those two sets of guidelines prima facie cannot be considered as statutory Rules. 6. It is seen that two sets of guidelines titled as “Rules for the Forester Training in Odisha” and “Guidelines for the Forest Guard Training in Odisha” were issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Odisha from time to time. Thus, those two sets of guidelines prima facie cannot be considered as statutory Rules. In other words, these are the guidelines issued by the Head of Department to facilitate smooth training for the foresters and forest guards. Rule-9 (it should be referred as Paragraph-9) of the so-called Rules for training of foresters specifies that, top two students passing from Mooney Forest Guards School may be considered eligible for admission into the foresters course. Again, paragraph-35 of the guidelines for training of forest guards specifies that, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests shall have the power to grant one advance increment to the top most forest guard trainee, if the total number of trainees in the combined examination does not exceed 50, and if, the combined strength of trainees of all the school exceeds 50, then the second topmost trainees shall be granted advance increment. 7. Admittedly, the Odisha Subordinate Forest Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Foresters) Rules, 1998 and the Odisha Subordinate Forest Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Forest Guards) Rules, 1998 do not provide facility of any such forester training either for the topmost student or top two students to be considered eligible for admission into foresters’ course. Those two Rules framed in 1998 prescribe the procedure of recruitment for forester and forest guards and their conditions of service. Foresters are to be recruited by direct recruitment to the extent of 50% through competitive examination and by promotion to the extent of rest 50% from eligible forest guards. In other words, any other process of recruitment except in respect of Village Forest Workers, as one time arrangement, was not recognized for appointment as forester. 8. The effect of the so-called foresters’ training Rules has no statutory force. As stated earlier, these are the guidelines issued by the Head of Department i.e. the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests. Therefore anything stated in such guidelines, which is inconsistent to the provisions in the statutory Rules, 1998 has no legal sanctity or overriding effect to grant any benefit in favour of the incumbent forest guard trainee. As stated earlier, these are the guidelines issued by the Head of Department i.e. the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests. Therefore anything stated in such guidelines, which is inconsistent to the provisions in the statutory Rules, 1998 has no legal sanctity or overriding effect to grant any benefit in favour of the incumbent forest guard trainee. Therefore, no illegality is found in approach of the learned Tribunal to reject the prayer of the Petitioner. 9. With regard to other contention of the Petitioner that one Rajani Kanta Panda, Forest Guard was granted benefit of forester training in the year 2003, it is seen from the letter dated 26th September, 2003 under Annexure-4 that, said Rajani Kanta Panda was appointed much prior to the Petitioner and undergone forest guard training course during 62nd batch of 1990-1991. In the said letter under Annexure-4, the Conservator of Forests recommended his case to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest for consideration. The Petitioner being an appointee of the year 1997 and has undergone training in 2002 after coming into force of 1998 Rules, is thus standing on a different footing than said Rajani Kanta Panda and as such cannot be equated with him to get the same benefit. 10. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed.