Holding

Selection for Rangers training must be limited to candidates who are approved probationers or full members of the service, as stipulated by the Kerala Public Service Commission, rendering the inclusion of ineligible probationers invalid, though their training cannot be withdrawn but its benefits are denied.

Summary

The case concerned the promotion of Deputy Rangers/Foresters to Rangers in the Kerala Forest Subordinate Service, which required candidates to undergo Rangers training selected by the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC). The appellants, who were approved probationers, alleged that the KPSC had improperly included ineligible probationers in the select list for training, based on certificates from the Controlling Authority that falsely designated them as approved probationers. The High Court had dismissed the writ petition, holding that the eligibility condition was not mandatory, a decision affirmed by the Division Bench. The Supreme Court examined the definition of "approved probationer" under the Kerala Forest Subordinate Service Rules, 1958, and held that only approved probationers or full members of the service could be selected for training. Consequently, the selection of ineligible probationers was declared invalid, although the training already received could not be withdrawn, the benefits of such training would not accrue to them. The Court allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court orders.

Issues considered

The eligibility of a probationer, who is not an approved probationer or full member, to be selected for Rangers training under the Kerala Forest Subordinate Service Rules.
Whether the eligibility condition imposed by the Kerala Public Service Commission is consistent with the service rules.
Whether the training already undergone by ineligible candidates can be set aside or the benefits denied.
Whether the High Court's dismissal of the writ petition should be upheld.

Subjects

service lawpromotioneligibilityapproved probationerKerala Forest Service Rulespublic service commissiontraining selectionadministrative law

Judgment

R.S. JAYAKUMAR AND ORS. A
v.
STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

OCTOBER 12, 2007
B
[A.K. MATHUR AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.J

Service Law:
Kera/a Forest Service Rules, 1958; Rr. 2, 7, 8 and 10:
c
· Promotion-Appointment of Rangers from Deputy Rangers!
- Foresters-Before appointment, selection ofcandidates for Rangers
training by Kera/a Public Service Commission-Controlling Authority
allegedly issuing approvedprobationer certificate in respect ofcertain ·
candidates though probation was not completed-Selection of D
ineligible candidates for training depriving selection ofsome eligible
candidates-Challenged by unsuccessful eligible candidates-
Dismissed by Single Judge ofHigh Court-Affirmed by Division Bench
). of High Court-On appeal, Held: In terms of Circular issued by the
Commission for selection ofcandidates for training, candidate should E
either be an approved probationer or member of the service-Since
Public Service Commission laid doltin eligibility conditions, the
candidates have to fulfill such conditions-No departure from such
conditions is allmved-E/;gibility requirement, that an incumbent be
a member ofservice/approvedprobationer should only be selectedfor F
training, appears to be well-founded and is not inconsistent with the
Rules therefor-Under the circumstances, Judgment of the Single
Judge, as affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court, cannot
be sustained-However, training undergone by selected candidates
who were ineligible, cannot be withdrawn but they would not get G
benefit oftraining, vis-a-vis the appellants-eligible candidates.

Words and Phrases:

'Approved probationer' and 'confirmation '-Meaning ofin the
99 H
\
+
\
100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

A context of Service Jurisprudence.
For the appointment of Rangers in the Kerala Forest Service
by way of promotion from amongst Deputy Rangers/Foresters, the
Rangers' Training has to be undergone by the candidates in the
Forest Colleges for which the candidates have to be selected by the
B Kerala Public service Commission. Such selection was made in
accordance with Rule 10 of the Kerala Service Rules. By notification
dated 30th May, 2005, the Commission invited applications for
selection of candidates for providing the training to the Forest
Rangers' Course before appointment as Rangers. The appellants
C applied for selection for the course along with other candidates who
were on probation. A certificate was allegedly given by the
Controlling Authority in favour of some candidates that they were
approved probationers, though they were not~ The select list of 34
candidates prepared by the Commission included ineligible
D candidates, probationers. As a result, the appellants who were
apprnved probationers could not be selected for the vacancies
notified for the course. This action of the authority was challenged
by the appellants by filiiig a writ petition. A counter affidavit was
filed in the main writ petition by the State accepting the contention )._

E of the appellants. The Commission also attempted to justify its list
stating that the inclusion of these candidates were on the basis of
the certificate issued by the Controlling Authority. Single Judge of
the High Court dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved, the appellants
filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the Division Bench of the
F High Court. Hence, the present appeals.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1. In order to get confirmation, one has to undergo
certain required tests i.e. the candidate has to pass certain
G departmental tests as laid down in the Rules, thereafter he acquires
an eligibility for the confirmation. In case, he fails to pass the desired
tests as laid down in the Rules, then he will not be eligible for
confirmation. [Para 17) (113-C)
1.2. The approved probationer as has been defined in the
H
I
-+
)

R.S. JAYAKUMAR v. STA.TE 101

Kerala Forest Subordinate Service Rules clearly says that the A
approved probationer means the Member of that service or who llas
satisfactorily completed its probation and awaits appointment as a
full member of such service. Therefore, in order to become an
approved probationer it is not simple, one has to successfully pass
all departmental tests. The probation is of d.uration of two years out B
of three years of continuous service and he should successfully pass
departmental test then of course, he can be eligible for promotion
and become a member of service. As per the circular issued by the
KPSC, the persons eligible for tests are persons either who have
come on the category of approved probationer or they are the C
member of the service. [Para 17] [113-D, E, F]
1.3. It is the admitted position that the respondents were not
appointed either as approved probationer or as a member of the
· service but they were only probationers and permitted to appear in
the selection for undergoing Rangers' training at Dehradun by the D
Commission. Therefore, the grievance of appellants was genuine·
that these persons who were not eligible to appe~r in the tests were ,
permitted to appear on the basis of so called certificate issued by
).
the controlling authority. In fact the Public Service Commission has
justified their appearance on the basis of so called certificates given E
by the Controlling authority but that certificate which was issued by
the Controlling authority was not correct. The State of Kerala in its
affidavit in opposition has categorically stated that certificate was
wrongly issued by controlling authority. But Single Judge of the High
Court proceeded to decide the matter treating that since they were F
probationers and there is no such provision in the Rules that for
, permitting to appear in the Public Service Commission tests one has
to be an approved probationer. Therefore, the Single Judge held that
the probationers were eligible to be included in the select list on their
successfully qualifying competitive test. This approach was totally G
erroneous on the part of the Single Judge as well as of the Division
Bench of the High Court. [Para 17] [113-F, G, H; 114-A, B, CJ
\-
1.4. The Public Service Commission once laid down the
Condition of eligibility being an approved probationer or member
H
102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

A of service, then each incumbent has to fulfill that eligibility or
othenvise he will not be permitted to appear in that test. The task of
selecting the persons for training is entrusted to the Public Service
Commission as required under sub-Rule 2 of Rule 10 of the Rules
and the Public Service Commission laid down the Condition of
B eligibility, one has to abide by it. There cannot be any departure from
that. The Public Service Commission was competent body to make
the selection of persons for training and, then the selection has to
be made as per the condition in the advertisement.
(Para 17) [114-C, D, E]
C 1.5. It is not correct to say that since Rules do not say that only
approved probationers and service members shall be eligible for test,
therefore, condition faid down by the Public Service Commission is
alien to Rules. The view taken by the Courts below is absolutely
erroneous. [Para 17) [114-E]
D
2.1. If incumbent is only probationer and he is not confirmed
on his failure to qualify departmental tests then he has to be
discharged from service. If the candidate successfully pass~s the
departmental examination and vacancies are available then ~e can
straightway be confirmed and ori confirmation he becomes the
E member of the service. In case vacancies are not available then after
successfully passing of examination he will be treated as approved
probationer. Once he is approved probationer, it means that he has
acquired eligibility to be confirmed as soon as vacancies are
available. But if one is not a member of service or approved
F probationer then just because he is probationer he cannot be
considered for sending on the training. Therefore, the idea behind
that incumbent be a member of a service i.e. substantive or
permanent or who has acquired eligibility for being appointed as
permanent member should be sent for training appears to be well
G founded. As the State Exchequer has to spend money for training
and they cannot afford to spend money on a person who is
probationer/temporary. There was a rationale behind this condition
and is not inconsistent with Rules. In this view of the matter, the
decision of Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court
H cannot be sustained. [Para 18) (114-H; 115-A, B, C, D]
l
+
'
R.S.JAYAKUMARv. STATE[A.K.MATHUR,J.] 103

2.2. The conditions laid down by the Public Service Commission A
in their advertisement have to be fulfilled by all the candidates. As
it is more than apparent that the respondents except one 'J' did not
fulfill the condition required in the advertisement issued by the
Commission for sending the candidates for training at Dehradun,
therefore, their selection cannot be sustained. B
[Para 20) (115-E, F, G)
2.3. The selection of the respondents for sending them for
training was bad and that cannot be used in the service career vis-
a-vis the appellants. However, the training undergone by them cannot
be withdrawn but they will not get the benefit of it vis-a-vis the C
appellants and this will not permit them to have a march over the
appellants. [Para 20) [115-H; 116-A]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 865-
867of2005. D
From the Judgment and final Order dated 27.11.2002 and
~
7.11.2002 of the High Court of Kerala at Emakulam in W.A. No. 2830
,. of 2002 and W.A. Nos. 2646of2002 & 2690of2002 (D) respectively.
WITH E
C.A. Nos. 868-871 of 2005.
T.L. Vishwanatha Iyer, T.G. Narayanan Nair, R Sathish and Ramesh
Babu M.R for the Appellants.
Vikas Singh, ASG., T.S. Doabia and C.S. Rajan, Vipin Nair, P.B. F
.., Suresh (Mis. Temple Law Firm), Varuna Bhandari Gugnani, D.S. Mabra
'f
P. Parmeswaran, M.P. Vinod, Dillep Pillai, Ajay K. Jain and A.
Raghunath for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
A.K. MATHUR, J. 1. These appeals are directed against the
orders dated 27th November, 2002 in WA No. 2830/2002 and 7th
~
November, 2002 in WA No. 2646/02 & 269012002 passed by the
Division Bench of the Kerala High Court whereby the Division Bench
has upheld the order passed by the learned Single Judge and dismissed H
104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

A the Writ Applications. The writ appeal was filed by the appellant as well
as State of Kerala. Hence, the present appeals.
2. For the convenient disposal of these appeals, facts given in the
case of R.S. Jayakumar are taken into consideration.
B The promotion as a Ranger in t.'1e Kerala Forest Subordinate SeIVice
from among Departmental candidates i.e. Deputy Rangers and Foresters
was provided by the Kerala Forest Subordinate SeIVice Rules (hereinafter
referred to as the Rules) framed underproviso to Article 309 of the
constitution of India. Rule 2 prescribes the mode of appointment of
C Rangers which is partly by Direct recruitment (25%), partly by
appointment of Forest Apprentices (25%), partly by promotion of Deputy
Rangers/Foresters (25%) who had UJ¢pergone Foresters' Training.
3. We are concerned with the third category i.e. the appointment of
Rangers by way of promotion of Deputy Rangers/Foresters. The Rangers'
D Training has to be undergone in the Forest Colleges at Coimbatore or
Dehradun for which the departmental candidates ha:ve to be selected by
the Kerala Public sef':ice Commission (hereinafter referred to as the
KPSC). Such selection is made in accordance with Rule 10 of the Rules,
namely (a) that the qualification prescribed by the Government oflndia
E for admission to the Rangers' Course , (b) that the candidate should have
passed the qualifying examination of the KPSC. By notification dated 30th
May, 2005, the KPSC invited applications for selection to the Forest
Rangers' Course 2001-2003.
F 4. The last date for recejpt ofapplication was 26th July, 2007. The
number of vacancies were notified as 5 (provisionally) subject to change
r
according to the allotment of seats by the Government of India. The
petitioners/appellants (herein) appl_ied for the course along with other
candidates who were on probation and were not approved probationers/
G full members of the service. A certificate was given by the Controlling
Authority in favour of the candidates that they were approved
probationers (though they were not). The select list of 34 candidates
prepared by the KPSC included ineligible candidates who were
probationers and not approved probations or full members of service. As
H a result, the appellants who were approved probationers could not be
I
{
I

R.S. JAYAKUMAR v. STATE [AK. MATHUR, J.] 105

selected for the vacancies notified for the course 2001-2003 and other A
persons who were probationers were selected. Therefore, t.llls action was
challenged by filing a separate writ petition by the appellants and others.
A counter affidavit was filed in the main writ petition No. 33355/2000
by the State and State accepted the contention of the appellants herein
and stated that the selection and inclusion of the contesting respondents B
in the select list was not legal or justified. The KPSC also attempted to
justify its list stating that the inclusion of these candidates were on the basis
of the certificate issued by the Controlling Authority. Learned Single Judge
after hearing both the parties dismissed the writ petition and held that it is
only for the purpose of sending the selected candidates for training and c
not for promotion or appointment. The Division Bench affirmed the order
of the learned Single Judge. Hence the present appeals.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
records. Only limited question which is called for our consideration is
whether the respondents, the selected candidates were approved D
probationers or full members in respective categories or not?
6. Before we proceed to decide the question, it would be relevant
to refer to necessruy provisions of the Kerala Rules bearing on the subject.
7. Rule 2 of the Rules deals with the appointment, which reads as E
under:
"( 1) ........ .

(2) ........ .
F
(3) Promotion of Dy. Rangers and Foresters trained as Rangers
in either of the Regional Forest Ranger's College
(4) Promotion of Dy. Rangers and Foresters who have not been
tranined as Rangers but have had training as Foresters;
G
Note: : 25% of; the vacancies shall be filled up by direct recruits
who have satisfactorily completed the practical training, 25% by
appointment of Forest Apprentices who have satisfactorily
completed training in the Forest Colleges at Dehra Dun or
Coimbatore and the practical training: 25% by promotion of Dy. H
~
I

106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

......
A Rangers/Foresters who have w1dergone Rangers training and 25%
by promotion of Dy. Rangers/Foresters who have undergone
'
Foresters training.
Provided that when required number of suitable candidates for
appointment to the quota fixed for direct recruitment are not
B available such vacancies shall also be filled up by appointment of
Forest Apprentices under method (2)
-+
Note 2: Direct recruitment and selection of Forest Apprentices and
Deputy Rangers/Foresters for training as rangers shall be made 1

c by the Kera/a Public service Commission.

Note 3: No senior trained Foresters/Deputy Rangers will be
superseded by a Junior Deputy Ranger/Forester who has not
received Ranger's Training on the ground that 25% posts of
Rangers earmarked for trained Deputy Rangers/Foresters have
D already been filled up. If suitable trained Deputy Rangers/Foresters
are not available for promotion, the vacancies allotted to them can -{
be filled provisionally under Rule 3l(a)(i) of the General Rules for
the Kerala State and Subordinate Services by promotion of Deputy >-..
Rangers/Foresters who have undergone Foresters' training in a.
E Regional Foresters training in a Regional Foresters School. Such
persons shall be replaced immediately on persons trained as
Rangers becoming available.
Note 4: A candidate who has secured that 1st Rank in the
F Regional Forester's School and has put in more than ten year's
service in the Department of which 5 years are spent as Forester
;~
wiU be considered eligible for promotion on the quota allocated ,.
for promotion of Deputy Rangers and Foresters trained as Rangers. ·
7. Rule 6 deals .with the other qualifications: which reads as under:
G
"6. Other qualifications: No persons shall be eligible for
appointment to the Class, Category or Grade specified in column
(I) and by the method specified in column (2) of the Table below, ~
Wlless he possesses the qualification specified in the corresponding
entry in column (3) thereof:-
H
·~·

R.S.JAYAKUMARv. STATE[A.K.MATHUR,J.] 107

TABLE A
Class, Method Qualification
Category
& Grade
(1) (2) (3)
1. Rangers Direct Xxxxx B
Recruitment
Appointment Must possess the
from Forest qualification prescribed by the
Apprentice Government of India from time
to time for admission to the c
Rangers Course.
Promotion Must possess the minimum
general education of the SSLC
Std. prescribed in the Schedule
to the General Rules and must D
have undergone either
Forester's training or Rangers
) Training.
Deputy Promotion of 1. Must possess the minimum
Rangers Foresters general educational E
qualification ofSSLC Std.
prescribed n the schedule
to the General Rules and
2. Must have undergone
training in a Regional F
Forester's School.
Foresters who have put in
15 years of service and
~.
who are over 35 years of
age shall be exempted from G
the Forester's training.

8. Rule 7 deals with the tests for appointment to the post of Rangers and

H
I

t
108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

A Deputy Rangers:
''Table
Category Tests
Rangers& : Forest Test for
Executive and
B Forest Apprentices: Controlling Officers (comprising
3 papers namely:-
~
1. General Law
2. ·Forest Acts and Rules and
'f
3. Forest Code and
c Deparmental Rules.
II. Account test (Lower)

3. Deputy Rangers, : Forest Test for clerical and
Foresters and Curater protective staff (comprising two
D papers namely:
·~
1. Forest Acts and Rules, and
2. Fore st Code and
A.
Departmental Rules.
E Note: The Forest Officers; Examination (forest Law, forest
Revenue, Office Procedure, and Account Matters); The Forest
Departmental Test and the Account Test for Executive Officers,
Part I of the Government of Madras will be treated as sufficient
Qualification in lieu of the test prescribed .above in the case of
F Officers allotted to the Kerala State on 1.11.1956 consequent on
the Reorganisation of States." !
'('

9. Rule 8 deals with the probation which is reproduced as under:
"8. Probation-Every person appointed to a category or class ,...,
G shall, from the date on which he joins duty, be on probation in such
category or class as follows:-
1. if appointed by direct recruitment or by transfer, for a period ~
of 2 years on duty within a continuous period of3 years, and
H
R.S. JA YAKUMAR v. STATE [A.K. MATHUR, J.] 109

2. if promoted, for a period of one year on duty within a A
continuous period of 2 years.
The period of probation prescribed above excludes the period
of training, if any."
10. Rule 10 deals with the promotion of Deputy Rangers and B
Foresters, as Rangers, which is reproduced as under:
"10. Promotion of Deputy Rangers and Foresters, as Rangers,-
(a) Selection of Departmental candidates for dep~~ation to the
Rangers Course shall be made in accordance with the following c
rules:-
(1) The qualifications prescribed for the Forest Subordinate from
time to time by the Government of India for admission to the
Ranger's Course will be followed.
D
(2) The candidate should have passed the qualifying
> examination held by the Kera/a Public Service Commission.
Note: The final selection from among those who have passed the
qualifying examination shall be made by the Public Service
Commission on the basis of merit after conducting a physical test: E
Provided that as between candidates, of fairly equal merit, seniority
in the Department shall be determining factor.
(b) A candidate selected shall be deputed to the College for training
for a period of not more than two years at govt. cost. F
(c) During the period of this preliminary training and his training in
the Forest College, he shall be paid his pay and allowances and
travelling allowance according to rules.
(d) He shall, before he is deputed to the College, execute a bond G
with two sureties for Rs. 8000/- each, and also a separate
agreement in such forms as may, :from time to time, be prescribed
by the State Government undertaking to serve the said Government
in the Forest Department for a period of five years after successfully
H
4-
(

110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

A completing the training at the College.
(e) The period of training shall be counted as service qualifying for
leave, increment, pension, etc.
(t) The seniority among the departmental candidates appointed as
B Rangers shall be determined according to the rank obtained in the
Rangers College as provided in rule 9(A). to (g)."
11. In pursuance of Rule 10(2), the Kerala Public Service
Commission undertook the selection of the candidates for sending them "
for Rangers' Course and in pursuance thereof a notification dated
C 30.5.2000 was issued and in that the cut off date was 26th July, 2000.
The relevant portion of the notification reads as under:
''xxxxxxx
xxxxxxx
D
7. Qualification:
Candidate must have passed the Intermediate Science
Examination (10+2) of any recognised University or State
EducatiOn Board or its equivalent with two or more of the following
E subjects:
Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Botany and Zoology
xxxxx:x''

Jr 12. It further lays down that the Forester/Deputy Ranger standing
first in the final examination in the State shall be exempted from the ).--
condition regarding the competitive examination as stipulated in para 8 of ..,-
the notification. Para 8 of the notification reads as under:-
"8. Competitive Examination: Candidates will be required
G to sit for a competitive examination to be conducted by the Kerala
Public Se1vice Commission on the following subjects:-
(i) English (Essay, Precis Writing, etc. 100 marks.
(ii) General knowledge 100 marks
H
R.S.JAYAKUMARv. STATE[A.K.MATHUR,J.] 111

(Iii) Any two papers out of the following 200 marks each A
subjects-Maths, Physics, chemistry, Botany, Zoology, Forestry,
Geology, Agriculture, Civil Engineering, Mechanical Engineering,
Electrical Engineering and Chemical Engineering.
The stands of examination in the above subjects will be of B
Intermediate of Science or equivalent.
xxxxx
The minimum marks to be obtained for each paper is 40%.
c
Note:
•
A Forester/Deputy Ranger standing first in the final examination
.• in the State Foresters' training school shall be exempted from the
conditions r~garding the Competitive examinations mentioned in
Para 8. He .should however possess the minimum educational D
qualification of SSLC."

13. Another relevant i.e. Clause 11 of the notification reads as under:
).

"11. Health Certificate and Service Certificate:-
E
The candidates shall produce Medical Certificate issued by a
Medical Officer not below the rank of Civil surgeon/Chief Medical
Officer of Health, testifying the candidates sound health and general ·
physical fitness for rough out-door work in the Forest Department.
Notes:- Physically handicapped candidates are not eligible to apply F
for this training course. The candidates holding the post of
T foresters/Deputy Rangers in the Kera/a Government Service
on a regular basis and who are approved probationers/Full
members in the respective category shall submit the
appl_ication alongwith a service certificate showing the service G
particulars of the applicant in the form appended. "

14. As per this note, the candidates who were approved
probationers/Full Member of service in respective category shall submit
H
-~
\

112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

A the application alongwith the service certificate showing service particulars
of the applicant in the form appended. The form already appended reads
as under:
"SERVICE CERTIFICATE TO BE PRODUCED BY THE
DEPARTMENTAL CANDIDATESALONGWITHTHE
B APPLICATION.FOR FOREST RANGERS COURSE 2001-
2003.
1. Name of candidate
2. Post now held
3. Scale of pay and pay as on
c the date of application
4. Department with circle
5. Total Service in Forest Department
with details regarding posts held scale ·.
of pay, duration, etc.
D 6. State whether a probationer/
Approved probationer/full member: "
15. Now reading of the fonn as mentioned above and alongwith
Item No. 6 of the fo1m makes it clear that the persons who were eligible ""'
E to apply for this test for undergoing Rangers training at Dehradun must
be either approved probationers/Full Members of the service. An
approved probationer though has not been defined in these rules but it
has been defined in the Kerala State Subordinate Service Rules, 1958
Sub-Rule 3 of rule 2 defines "Approved probationer" reads as under:
F "Approved probationer" in a service, class or category means
a member of that service, class or category who has satisfactorily
completed his probation and awaits appointment as a fiJll member
of such service, class or category."
16. A member of a service has been defined in Clause 9 which
G
reads as under:-
"Member ofa service" means a person who has been appointed
to that service and who has not retired or resigned, been removed
or dismissed, been substantively transferred or reduced to another
H
R.S.JAYAKUMARv. STATE[A.K.MATHUR,J.] 113

service, or been discharged otherwise than for want of a vacan9y. A
He may be a probationer, an approved probationer or a full
member of that service."
17. In this legal back-ground, the question now emerges is whether
a person who has been selected is in fact approved probationer or not?
As mentioned above, in order to become the approved probationer one B
has to undergo training. If appointment by direct recruitment or by transfer
shall be on duty for the period of two years on duty within a continuous
period of three years and if permitted for a period of one year on duty
within a continuous period of 2 years. This includes the period of training,
if any. In order to get confirmation, one has to undergo certain required C
tests i.e. he has to pass certain departmental tests as laid down in the
Rules, thereafter he acquires an eligibility for the confirmation. In case,
he fails to pass the desired tests as laid down in the rules, then he will not
be eligible for confirmation. The tests are provided in Rule 7, i.e., he has
to undergo clerical test comprising of papers namely, Forest Acts and D
Rules and Forest Code and Departmental Rules. After completing
successfully these tests then alone he acquires the eligibility to be confirmed
on the post. In case he fails to pass then he cannot be confirmed on the
post. The approved probationer as has been defined in the Rules of 1958
clearly says that the approved probationer means the Member of that E
service or who has satisfactorily completed its probation and awaits
appointment as a full member of such service. Therefore, in order to
become an approved probationer it is not simple, one has. to successfully
pass all departmental tests. The probation is of duration of two years out
of three years of continuous service and he should successfully pass F
departmental test then of course, he can be eligible for promotion and
become a member of service. As per the circular issued by the KPSC,
the persons eligible for tests are persons either who have come on the
category of approved probationer or they are the member of the service.
It is the admitted position that the respondents were not appointed either G
as approved probationer or as a member of the service but they were
only probationers and pem1itted to appear in the selection for undergoing .
Rangers' training at Dehradun by the Commission. Therefore, the grievance
of appellants was genuine that these persons who were not eligible to
appear in the tests were permitted to appear on the basis of so called H
J
\

114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

A certificate issued by the controlling authority. In fact the Public Service
Commission has justified their appearance on the basis of so called
certificates given by the Controlling authority but that certificate which was
issued by the Controlling authority was not correct. The State of Kerala
in its affidavit in opposition has categorically stated that certificate was
B wrongly issued by controlling authority. But learned single Judge
proceeded to decide the matter treating that since they were probationers
and there is no such provisio_n in the Rules that for permitting to appear
in the Public Service Commission tests one has to be an approved
probationer. Therefore, the learned Single Judge held that the probationers
C were eligible to be included in the select list on their successfully qualifying
competitive test. We regret, this approach was totally erroneous on the
part of the learned Single Judge as well as of the Division Bench. The
Public Service Commission once laid down'the ,eligibility being an
approved probationer or member of service, then each incumbent has to
D fulfil that eligibility or otherwise he will not be permitted to appear in that
test. The task of selecting the persons for training is entrusted to the Public
Service Commission as required under sub-Rule 2 of Rule 10 & the Public
Service Commission laid down the Condition of eligibility, one has to abide
by it. There cannot be any departure from that. The Public Service
E Commission was competent body to make the selection of persons for
training and, then the selection has to be made as per the condition in the
advertisement. It is not correct to say that since rules do not say that only
approved probationers and service members shall be eligible for test,
therefore, condition laid down by the Public Service Commission is alien
to Rules. The view taken by the Courts below is absolutely erroneous.
F Once the condition of selection is laid down then all the candidates have
to fulfil the same and no departure from that is possible. One who lays
down the procedural sword then same shall be slain by that. Once a body
has been entrusted the job of selection & lays down the criteria which is
not contrary to the Rules, in that case only eligible candidates should be
G selected as per conditions laid down by the selection body. The KPSC
has laid down the eligibility that candidates should be approved
_,
probationers or members of service, which is not contrary to Rules, as
Rules, nowhere lays to the contrary.
H 18. There appears to be a rationale behind it if incumbent is only
R.S.JA YAKUMAR v. STATE [A.K.MATHUR,J.] ~ 15

probationer & he is not confinned on his failure to qualify departmental A
tests then he has to be discharged from service. If the candidate
successfully passes the departmental examination and vacancies are
available then he can straightway be confinned & on confirmation he
becomes the member of the service. In case vacancies are not available
then after successfully passing of examination he will be treated as B
approved probationer. Once he is approved probationer, it means that
he has acquired eligibility to be confirmed as soon as vacancies are
available. But if one is not a member of service or approved probationer
then just because he is probationer he cannot be considered for sending
on the training. Therefore, the idea behind that incumbent be a member C
of a service i.e. substantive or pennanent or who has acquired eligibility
for being appointed as permanent member should be sent for training
appears to be well founded. As the State Exchequer has to spend money
for training and they cannot afford to spend money on a person who is
probationer/temporary. There was a rationale behind this condition and D
is not inconsistent with Rules. In this view of the matter, the decision of
learned Single Judge and the Division Bench cannot be sustained.
19. Our attention was invited to the case of Jose Mathew who is
also respondent herein. He belongs to exempted category from the
competitive test as he stood first in the forester training. He need not to E
go for the competitive test because of the Clause 8 of the Note of the
advertisement.
20. However, the conditions laid down by the Public Service
Commission in their advertisement have to be fulfilled by all the candidates. F
As it is more than apparent that the respondents except Jose Mathew
did not fulfil the condition required in the advertisement issued by the Public
Service Commission for sending the candidates for training at Dehradun,
therefore, their selection cannot be sustained. But they were sent for
training and they have undergone the training and sufficient amount has G
been spent on their training. But they were not eligible to be sent for the
training. It is declared that they will not be entitled to avail benefit of their
training qua the petitioners/appellants. We allow these Appeals and set
aside the order of the High Court & hold that the selection of the
respondents for sending them for training was bad and that cannot be H
116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 12007] 11 S.C.R.

A used in the service career vis a vis the petitioners/appellants. However,
the training undergone by them cannot be withdrawn but they will not get
the benefit of it vis a vis the petitioners/appellants and this will not permit
them to have a march over the petitioners/appellants.
. 21. All the appeals are accordingly allowed with no order as to costs.
B
S.K.S. Appeals allowed.

r
y