SC Tostate Madhya Pradesh Government; Reframe IFS Appraisal Rules Within One Month

Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh): The Supreme Court has come down heavily on the state government, directing it to reframe rules governing the Performance Appraisal Reports (PAR) of Indian Forest Service (IFS) officers within one month, following strict adherence to earlier court rulings. Chief Justice BR Gavai passed the order, taking serious note of the state's current rules, which the court found to be in violation of established legal precedents.

The direction came after amicus curiae Parameshwar told the court that Madhya Pradesh’s rules breach judgments delivered in key cases including State of Haryana v. P.C. Wadhwa, Santosh Bharti v. State of Madhya Pradesh, and the Supreme Court’s April 19, 2004 order in the present proceedings.

Parameshwar stated that the government’s current order is unconstitutional and must be quashed, as it violates judicial directives regarding how IFS officers are to be appraised—particularly objecting to assessments being conducted by IAS officers not directly engaged with forest service work.

In response, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta defended the state’s position, citing Article 166(2) and (3) of the Constitution, under which Governor of Madhya Pradesh has framed Government Business (Allocation) Rules.

He stated that under these rules, each department must have a Secretary to the Government—typically an Additional Chief Secretary (ACS) or Principal Secretary (PS)—who serves as the administrative head.

According to Mehta, officers like the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) have diverse responsibilities ranging from forest conservation and law enforcement to scheme implementation and financial administration. He argued that the ACS/PS must remain the accepting authority for evaluating DFO’s performance.

The Solicitor General also said that the same logic applies to Chief Conservators of Forests (CCFs) and Additional Principal Chief Conservators of Forests (APCCFs), especially those holding vertical headquarters roles. Mehta maintained that the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (PCCF) or Head of Forest Force should not act as reviewing or accepting authority for senior forest officers, as such roles require oversight by officials who regularly engage with their work.

Further, Mehta submitted that the current structure reflects the legislative intent, as well as principles of accountability and transparency. However, to ease concerns among IFS officers, he said the state had agreed not to insist on final remarks by ACS/PS, and instead, only comments from reviewing officers would be sought.