“Same-Service Superior” Rule Reaffirmed: Supreme Court Quashes Madhya Pradesh G.O. on IFS Performance Appraisals

1. Introduction

In In re T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (2025 INSC 748), the Supreme Court of India—exercising its continuing inherent/original jurisdiction in the celebrated forest–conservation litigation—decided a fresh batch of interlocutory applications. The core dispute was whether officers of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) could lawfully act as reporting, reviewing, or accepting authorities for the Performance Appraisal Reports (PARs) of officers of the Indian Forest Service (IFS) in Madhya Pradesh. The challenge was directed at the State Government’s G.O. dated 29 June 2024 which institutionalised IAS oversight in the appraisal channel of IFS officers up to the level of Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (APCCF).

Applicants included individual IFS officers, the Indian Forest Service Association (State Unit) and public-spirited individuals. Shri K. Parameshwar appeared as amicus curiae; Shri Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General of India, argued for the State of Madhya Pradesh.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• The Court (CJI B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih) quashed the impugned G.O. as violative of its earlier orders (22 Sept 2000 and 19 Apr 2004) and the statutory scheme governing All-India Services confidential reporting.
• It held that, save for the topmost post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (PCCF), the PAR of an IFS officer must be written, reviewed and accepted within the vertical hierarchy of the Forest Department, i.e. by immediate superiors belonging to the same service.
• The State of Madhya Pradesh was directed to reframe its rules within one month in conformity with the Court’s directions and the clarifications issued by the Ministry of Environment & Forests (MoEF) and the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT).
• While noting that the new G.O. was “rather contemptuous”, the Court refrain from initiating contempt proceedings, choosing instead to set aside the order and reiterate the governing legal position.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. State of Haryana v. P.C. Wadhwa (1987) 2 SCC 602
   • The Court held that a reporting authority must be superior in rank to the officer reported upon, stressing propriety and departmental supervision.
   • This principle underpins the “same-service superior” doctrine now applied to IFS officers.
2. Santosh Bharti v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Order dated 22 Sept 2000 in the very Godavarman matter)
   • Laid down a specific matrix: from Assistant Conservator up to APCCF, reporting/reviewing authorities must be immediate superiors within the Forest Department; only the PCCF can be reported upon by an external authority higher in government hierarchy.
   • Directed Union and States to ensure conformity; formed the immediate backdrop for the present dispute.
3. Order dated 19 Apr 2004 in I.A. No. 776/2002 (Godavarman)
   • After receiving a Central Empowered Committee (CEC) report, the Court re-affirmed the 2000 directions and mandated nationwide compliance.
4. State of Assam v. Binod Kumar (2024) 3 SCC 611
   • While dealing with IPS appraisal, the Court condemned assignment of APAR writing to officers outside the department, reiterating that both reporting and reviewing authorities must belong to the same service hierarchy.
   • Provided a fresh doctrinal peg for the Court’s 2025 reasoning.

3.2 Statutory & Regulatory Framework Considered

• Section 3(1) of the All-India Services Act, 1951 – enabling rule-making power for recruitment and service conditions.
• All-India Services (Confidential Rolls) Rules, 1970 (as amended 1987) – supplies definitions of “reporting”, “reviewing” and “accepting” authority.
• All-India Services (Performance Appraisal Report) Rules, 2007 – modern analogue to the 1970 Rules.
• MoEF letter dated 8 Nov 2001 & DoPT O.M. dated 2 Sept 2004 – executive clarifications implementing the 2000 Supreme Court order.

3.3 Legal Reasoning

The Court’s chain of logic proceeds as follows:

1. Textual Mandate – Even after the 1987 amendment dropping the phrase “immediately superior”, the Rules still require the reporting authority to “supervise the performance” of the officer and the reviewing authority to supervise the reporter. This nested supervision is naturally satisfied when both belong to the same departmental hierarchy.
2. Precedential Constraint – The 2000 and 2004 orders, rendered by coordinate (three-Judge) Benches, are binding. Until modified by a larger Bench or legislative action, non-compliance by a State is impermissible.
3. Functional Justification – Forest officers’ core work (protection, wildlife management, working plans) is department-specific. Objective assessment therefore requires domain knowledge and continuous oversight by immediate superiors, not by district collectors whose focus is broader civil administration.
4. Administrative Hierarchy & Morale – Allowing officers from another service but same pay/HAG scale—or lower—to write PARs distorts command structure, demoralises the specialised cadre, and may impede forest-conservation goals which are the raison d’être of the Godavarman series.

3.4 Impact on Future Cases and Public Administration

• Pan-India Clarification – Reaffirms that the 2000/2004 orders remain good law, forestalling similar experiments by other States.
• Uniform All-India Services Administration – Sends a clear message that State-specific “orders of precedence” cannot override central service rules and Supreme Court directions.
• Doctrine Exportability – Although rendered in an IFS context, the principle is likely to influence appraisal structures in other specialised cadres (e.g., Indian Revenue Service, Engineering Services) whenever States attempt cross-service reporting.
• Contempt Jurisprudence – The Court’s leniency (no contempt) may be short-lived; future defiance could invite strict penal action.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Reporting Authority (RA) – The officer who writes the first-level appraisal of the subordinate’s PAR/APAR.
• Reviewing Authority (RevA) – The officer who reviews the RA’s assessment, offering concurrence or modification.
• Accepting Authority (AA) – The top authority in the chain who finally accepts and closes the PAR; ensures fairness and policy conformity.
• PAR / APAR / ACR – Annual performance documents evaluating an officer’s work, integrity and competencies; pivotal for promotions, postings and vigilance clearance.
• APCCF / PCCF / DFO – Ranks within the IFS: Divisional Forest Officer (field in-charge), Conservators & Chief Conservators (zonal/territorial heads), Additional PCCF (senior policy/advisory), Principal CC (cadre head in State).
• All-India Service – A cadre recruited centrally but deployed under joint control of the Union and various States, e.g., IAS, IPS, IFS.

5. Conclusion

The 2025 decision is less about creating a novel doctrine than about unequivocally affirming an existing one: performance appraisal within an All-India Service must stay within its own hierarchical chain up to the highest cadre post for which an internal superior exists. By invalidating Madhya Pradesh’s attempt to substitute IAS officers in the evaluation of IFS peers, the Supreme Court safeguards both service autonomy and the specialised expertise essential to forest governance. The ruling harmonises statutory rules, administrative propriety and judicial precedent, providing a definitive template for all States and Union Territories. In the broader legal landscape, it fortifies the principle that executive orders—however well-intentioned—cannot breach judicially settled hierarchies or dilute the integrity of specialist services.