SC scraps educational qualification requirement for Forester post

The Supreme Court on Friday held as unconstitutional the requirement of being a graduate to participate in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE), which is conducted for appointment to the post of Forester..The judgment was delivered by a Bench of Justices Kurian Joseph and R Banumathi in a plea filed by Maharashtra Forest Guards and Foresters Association against the state of Maharashtra..The dispute in question arose after the Maharashtra government amended the Forester, Forest Guard, Ranger-Surveyor, Surveyor, Head Clerk, Accountant and Clerk-cum-Typist (Recruitment) Rules, 1987. The new Rules sought to fill 75 per cent of the vacancies to the Forester post on the basis of seniority-cum experience, while the remaining 25 per cent was to be filled up on the basis of the LDCE..As per Rule 7(2)(b), candidates appearing in the examination are required to have a degree from a statutory university..The question that arose for consideration was whether the restriction introduced on the basis of educational qualification for participating in the LDCE was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India..The requirement of being a graduate was challenged on the ground that it creates a class within a class, and was an additional restriction which was discriminatory..The state government, represented by Senior Advocate Shekhar Naphade, argued that the purpose of the amendment was to introduce young blood in the post of Forester, since they have to undertake physically challenging responsibilities as well..The Court, however, held that the new Rule was indeed constitutionally unsound..“…introducing an additional restriction of graduation for participation in the LDCE without there being any quota reserved for graduates will be discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India since it creates a class within a class….… The Forest Guards, irrespective of educational qualifications, having formed one class for the purpose of participation in the LDCE, a further classification between graduates and non-graduates for participating in the LDCE is unreasonable. It is a case of equals being treated unequally.”.Therefore, the Bench held that Rule 7, insofar as it imposes a requirement of being a graduate to apply for the LDCE, is unconstitutional..The Bench, however, clarified that the order will not have retrospective effect, and that the earlier promotions would not be affected..“However this judgment shall not affect the promotions already made. But for further promotions, the LDCE shall be held afresh granting opportunity to all eligible Forest Guards.”. Read the judgment: