Delhi High Court: In a batch of writ petitions challenging a common order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing petitioners’ claims that they asserted vested rights and legitimate expectation to be governed by the rules prevailing on the date of entry into service therefore, they have a right to appear in UPSC Civil Services Examination during training, a Division Bench of Anil Kshetarpal* and Amit Mahajan, JJ., upheld the Tribunal’s order barring Indian Forest Service (IFS) probationers appearing in UPSC Exam during training.
The Court held that —
-
IFS probationers cannot insist on being governed, for all purposes, by the rules prevailing on the date of appointment.
-
The Indian Forest Service (Probation) Amendment Rules, 2023 apply to probationers undergoing training after 23-11-2023, even if they joined prior thereto.
-
The restriction on appearing in the Civil Services Examination during probationary training is neither arbitrary nor illegal and does not warrant interference under Article 226.
Factual Matrix
In the instant matter, the petitioners are probationers of the IFS, selected through the Indian Forest Service Examination, 2022, and joined probationary training at the Indira Gandhi National Forest Academy (IGNFA) on 15-11-2023.
At the time the petitioners joined training, the Indian Forest Service (Probation) Rules, 1968, as amended in 2017, did not contain any prohibition restraining probationers from appearing in the Civil Services Examination or any other open competitive examination during training. However, on 23-11-2023, the Department of Personnel and Training notified the Indian Forest Service (Probation) Amendment Rules, 2023, whereby the proviso to Rule 8(1) was re-introduced, prohibiting probationers from appearing in such examinations during the period of training.
Following the Indian Forest Service (Probation) Amendment Rules, 2023, the petitioners sought permission to appear in the Civil Services Examination or, in the alternative, sought non-application of the amended rules to them or grant of extraordinary leave. These representations were rejected. Although an option of deferment or exemption from training was made available to probationers who wished to appear in the examination, the petitioners chose to continue with their training.
Aggrieved, the petitioners approached the Central Administrative Tribunal which dismissed their Original Applications by a common judgment dated 12-12-2025 and held that no vested right had been taken away. Challenging the impugned order, the present writ petitions were filed.
Moot Points
-
Whether IFS probationers can claim a right to be governed, for all purposes, by the rules prevailing on the date of their appointment, notwithstanding subsequent amendments during probation?
-
Whether the Indian Forest Service (Probation) Amendment Rules, 2023 are inapplicable to the petitioners on the ground that they joined training prior to the said notification?
-
Whether denial of permission to IFS probationers appearing in UPSC Exam during training arbitrary or illegal so as to warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?
Court’s Analysis
The Court note that “probation, by its very nature, is a transitional phase of service, regulated continuously by the rules in force.” The Court stated that “service jurisprudence recognises that conditions of service, including those regulating probation and training, are governed by the statutory rules as they stand from time to time.” The Court held that a probationer does not acquire a vested right that the regulatory framework prevailing on the date of entry into service must continue unchanged.
“A probationer does not acquire an immutable or vested right to insist that the regulatory framework prevailing on the date of entry into service must continue unchanged.”
The prohibition on appearing in open competitive examinations during probation existed for decades under the Indian Forest Service (Probation) Rules, 1968 and was only temporarily omitted in 2017. The Indian Forest Service (Probation) Amendment Rules, 2023 merely restored the original position.
The Court held that the Indian Forest Service (Probation) Amendment Rules, 2023 does not operate retrospectively merely because the petitioners joined training a few days prior to its notification. It governs a continuing relationship and regulates conduct during probation after its enforcement.
Rejecting the plea of legitimate expectation, the Court held that such an expectation cannot override a statutory rule validly framed in exercise of legislative power. Once the competent authority restored the prohibition through the 2023 Amendment, no enforceable expectation could survive contrary to the amended rule.
“Legitimate expectation cannot crystallise into a vested right to insist upon the continued application of a repealed or amended statutory provision.”
The Court noted that the petitioners were afforded the option of deferment or exemption from training, which they consciously chose not to exercise. Having chosen to remain within the framework of probationary training governed by the amended rules, they could not “approbate and reprobate” by selectively disowning the restrictive provisions.
“The principle that one cannot approbate and reprobate applies with full force.”
The Court held that there is no arbitrariness or violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India as the restriction is uniformly applicable to all probationers, is temporary, and has a rational nexus with the object of ensuring uninterrupted training and institutional discipline.
Emphasising on the limited scope of judicial review, the Court reiterated that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is supervisory and not appellate, and the Tribunal’s order did not suffer from any jurisdictional error or manifest illegality.
Court’s Decision
The dismissed the writ petitions and upheld the impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 12-12-2025 barring IFS probationers appearing in UPSC Exam during training.
[Abhimanyu Singh v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 179, Decided on 13-01-2026]
*Judgment by Justice Anil Kshetarpal
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Shrey Kapoor, Mr. Nishit Agrawal, Ms. Kanishka Mittal and Ms. Deepti Rathi, Counsel for the Petitioners
Dr. Monika Arora (CGSC), Mr. Subhrodeep Saha, Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Ms. Anamika Thaku, Mr. Abhinav Verma, Advocates and Mr. Debasish Mishra (G.P), Counsel for the Respondents
Buy Constitution of India HERE
