Bhopal: An order issued by the Mohan Yadav-led Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government in Madhya Pradesh has had officers of Indian Forest Service (IFS) and Indian Administrative Service (IAS) at loggerheads for the past few months.
The 29 June order, which mandated a review of district-level IFS officers from IAS officers posted as district collectors for the forest officers’ annual appraisal process, was viewed by IFS officers as a bid to subvert its independence by bringing it under the purview of the IAS.
The IFS Association wrote to the chief minister opposing the order, but failed to get an audience with him to discuss the issue. The matter eventually reached the Supreme Court, with the top court even orally telling the Madhya Pradesh government to withdraw the controversial order in August.
With the matter scheduled to be heard by the apex court next week, here’s a look at what the case is, and what the IFS officers and the Madhya Pradesh government have said so far.
Amendment to IFS appraisal process, why it is being opposed
Changing rules laid down in 2016, in an order dated 29 June, 2024, the Madhya Pradesh government mandated the Conservator of Forests (CF) or the Chief Conservator of Forests (CCF)—the reporting authority for Divisional Forest Officers (DFOs)—to seek a review and comments from district collectors, while preparing the DFOs’ Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR).
Reviews and comments submitted by IAS officers would then be considered with respect to the IFS officer’s final rating.
For this purpose, the government identified 10 different heads under the scope of Joint Forest Management (JFM) activities. These include issues related to MGNREGA, Forest Rights Act, land acquisition for developmental projects and mining, besides ecotourism.
Similarly, Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (PCCF) would seek comments and review from divisional commissioners, while rating the annual performance of CF and CCF.
IFS officers felt that the move would undermine the independence of the forest service. A letter to CM Yadav by the IFS Association on 4 July read, “It is baffling to know that an officer is assessed by two departments (revenue and forest) and it will adversely affect the career progression of the officer.”
Also Read: Madhya Pradesh govt order on appraisal criteria pits IAS against IFS. ‘Will affect morale’
The SC judgment from 2000 & what CEC said in 2004
The association’s letter alleged that the order was in direct contravention of guidelines laid down by a Supreme Court ruling in 2000.
In response to a writ petition filed by T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad in 1995, the apex court had ruled in 2000, “It appears logical to us that up to the rank of Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (APCCF), reporting authority had to be immediate supervisor from within the department.”
The court had further observed, “The reviewing authority would also be a person in the forest department with the exception of Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (PCCF), for whom reporting authority would be other than a person from the department as there is no person senior to him within the department.”
Directing chief secretaries of all states to implement the directions of the court after the 2000 judgment, the Ministry of Environment and Forests had said in a letter, dated 8 November, 2001, that APARs of all officers up to the rank of Additional PCCF were to be written by immediate supervisors within the IFS.
However, the ministry had also directed the collector and the commissioner to record their comments, if necessary, on the performance of the IFS officer, in relation to the implementation of developmental work funded by the district administration for consideration by the superior departmental officer at the time of writing the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs).
In 2002, the Madhya Pradesh government moved the Supreme Court, seeking modification and clarification in the writing of APARs for forest officers.
The state government had then said that district collectors and divisional commissioners were the overall incharge, who coordinated the implementation of welfare policies at district and divisional level, and that the divisional forest officers and other forest officers also function under their coordination and supervision.
If the district collector and divisional supervisor had no say in writing the ACRs of the officers, they might not have control over them in implementing the government’s policies, the government had claimed.
This had led to the apex court constituting a four-member Central Empowered Committee (CEC) on 1 August, 2003.
Submitting its report on 22 January, 2004, the CEC had said that the officers worked in the direct supervision and administrative control of their superior forest officer, and therefore, It was logical that their ACR’s were written by their superiors in the forest department, and not their counterparts in the revenue department.
Though the forest officer might be involved in the implementation of various welfare and development schemes of the state, this should not normally become their primary responsibility, the CEC had added.
However, the panel report had stated, “If required, a report about the performance of the forest officers in implementation of the welfare scheme may be sent by the Assistant Collector, District Collector of District Commissioner to the designated reporting officer, which would be taken in to consideration by the reporting officer while writing their CRs.”
The matter in court now
State representatives of the IFS Association wanted to meet the chief minister in person to discuss the issue, but were only allowed to meet the additional chief secretary (forest).
Eventually, advocate Gaurav Bansal moved an interlocutory application in the Supreme Court, arguing that the government’s order undermined the core mandate of forest officers.
The petition maintained that the Madhya Pradesh government has wilfully, intentionally and deliberately, with a malafide intention, introduced a mechanism, involving officers from other services (additional chief secretary and principal secretary) in the appraisal process of IFS officers.
It also said that the state government changed the “accepting authorities” of APARs from senior officers in the forest department to those of other services.
In August, seeking a response from the Madhya Pradesh government, the top court orally told the state administration to withdraw the controversial order and warned the state that it would be held in contempt otherwise.
State govt’s response in court
The Madhya Pradesh government has maintained that its order is exactly in line with the recommendations made by the CEC in 2004.
The “reporting authority” has only been asked to seek a report from the respective collector or commissioner, while the authority to write APARs lies solely with the officer of the IFS, which is exactly as recommended by the CEC, the state government submitted before the apex court.
The state claimed that Bansal’s petition wrongly asserted that the state changed the channel of submission of ACRs.
The work completion sheet and evaluation report submitted by the district collector are solely for the purpose of sending reports to the reporting authority for their consideration and the collector has no direct role in writing the ACRs as the input is limited to providing supplementary information on the implementation of welfare schemes, the government said.
The final ACR is prepared by the reporting authority and the district collector’s review does not influence the writing process of the report directly, it added in its reply. The state government also said that Bansal’s argument, that forest officers face difficulties in reconciling conservation policies with development projects, is irrelevant to the current dispute.
“Needless to mention that even development project work is also governed and regulated under robust regulatory and legal framework coherent with the policies governing environmental issues etc.. Therefore, the applicant’s attempt to contend that development projects proposed by state authorities may not align with national policies enforced by the Indian Forest Services is baseless, unsubstantiated and devoid of merit,” the state government submitted.
It also maintained that the apex court’s 2000 judgment was limited to “reporting” and “reviewing” authority, with no discussion on who should be the “accepting authority”.
Similarly, the CEC nowhere specifically suggested that the “accepting authority” of the CRs ought to be from the forest department, it said. A thorough reading of the order reveals that it was intended to apply exclusively to the reporting authority and the reviewing authority without any reference to or inclusion of accepting authority, the government asserted.
It said that only the “accepting authority”, who has the final word in the appraisal process, is designated as someone from the same department, but who may be from a different service.
The practice of having the “accepting authority” not from the forest service, but from within the forest department, is followed by several states, like Gujarat, Karnataka, Rajasthan and Haryana, the government said.
It added that if the apex court feels that a fresh look is required on the issue of who the accepting authority should be, then all states should be called upon for discussion.
The case is set to be heard again by the Supreme Court on 23 October.
(Edited by Mannat Chugh)