The High Court of Delhi has upheld the validity of the Indian Forest Service (Probation) Amendment Rules, 2023, which prohibits probationers from appearing in the Civil Services Examination (CSE) or any other open competitive examination during their training period. A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan dismissed a batch of writ petitions challenging the retrospective application of the amendment, ruling that service conditions governing probation and training are not immutable and apply prospectively to the period of training.
The Court was seized of writ petitions filed by Indian Forest Service (IFS) probationers who challenged the common order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, dated December 12, 2025. The Tribunal had dismissed their applications against the 2023 Amendment to the IFS (Probation) Rules, which re-introduced a ban on appearing for other exams during training at the Indira Gandhi National Forest Academy (IGNFA). The High Court held that the amendment regulates conduct during the ongoing training period and does not amount to a retrospective deprivation of vested rights.
Background of the Case
The petitioners, successful candidates of the Indian Forest Service Examination, 2022, joined their probationary training at IGNFA on November 15, 2023. At the time of their joining, the prohibition on appearing in other exams—which existed in Rule 8 of the Indian Forest Service (Probation) Rules, 1968—had been omitted by a 2017 amendment.
However, on November 23, 2023, the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) notified the Indian Forest Service (Probation) Amendment Rules, 2023. This amendment re-introduced the proviso to Rule 8(1), explicitly stating that “no probationer in the service shall, during the period of training at the Indira Gandhi National Forest Academy, Dehradun, appear in either the Civil Services Examination, or in any other examination for appointment to the Central or State Service by open competitive examination.”
The petitioners’ requests for permission to appear in the CSE or for the non-application of the 2023 Amendment were rejected by the competent authority. Aggrieved, they approached the Tribunal, which dismissed their pleas, leading to the present appeal before the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
The Petitioners contended that the 2023 Amendment could not apply to them as they had joined training on November 15, 2023, prior to the notification of the amendment on November 23, 2023. They argued that they had a “legitimate expectation” based on the rules in force at the time of joining to appear in the UPSC Civil Services Examination. It was submitted that applying the amendment to them retrospectively was arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Counsel for the petitioners emphasized their merit and argued that the restriction was a “punitive measure without fault.”
The Respondents (Union of India) argued that the amendment was enacted to ensure proper discipline, uninterrupted training, and efficient utilization of government resources. They submitted that the petitioners were given an option to defer or seek exemption from training if they wished to appear for the CSE, but they voluntarily chose to join and continue training. The respondents relied on the Constitution Bench decision in Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan and Others to argue that the High Court’s jurisdiction is supervisory and factual findings of the Tribunal should not be interfered with.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Division Bench rejected the foundational premise of the petitioners that service conditions remain frozen as they stood on the date of appointment.
On Vested Rights and Retrospectivity: The Court observed that service jurisprudence recognizes that conditions of service are governed by statutory rules as they stand from time to time. The Bench stated:
“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 throughout the period of probation or thereafter.”
Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raj Kumar (2022), the Court reiterated that rules can be amended in public interest and will govern the field from the date of their enforcement.
The Court held that the 2023 Amendment does not operate retrospectively merely because the petitioners joined a few days prior to its notification.
“The Amendment merely regulates the manner in which probationary training is to be undergone from the date of its enforcement onwards. Its application to probationers who were already undergoing training on the date of its notification, therefore, constitutes prospective operation upon a continuing and ongoing relationship, and not retrospective interference with vested rights.”
On Legitimate Expectation: The Court dismissed the plea of legitimate expectation, noting that such an expectation cannot defeat a statutory rule validly framed. The Court remarked:
“Once the competent authority, in exercise of its rule-making power, restored the earlier prohibition by notifying the 2023 Amendment, no enforceable expectation could survive contrary to the amended rule.”
On Election of Remedies: The Court noted that the petitioners were provided with an option to defer training if they wished to appear for the CSE. Having elected to continue training without seeking deferment, they could not selectively disown the rules governing that training.
“The principle that one cannot approbate and reprobate applies with full force. A probationer who voluntarily subjects himself or herself to the discipline of training under the prevailing statutory regime cannot selectively disown those provisions which are perceived to operate to his or her disadvantage.”
On Arbitrariness: The Bench found that the restriction was neither permanent nor punitive but confined strictly to the training period to ensure institutional discipline and optimal resource utilization. The Court held that individual excellence cannot override uniform statutory rules applicable to a class.
Decision
The High Court concluded that the Tribunal’s order did not suffer from any jurisdictional infirmity or manifest illegality. The Court held:
- IFS probationers cannot claim a right to be governed by the rules prevailing on the date of their appointment irrespective of subsequent valid amendments.
- The Indian Forest Service (Probation) Amendment Rules, 2023, are applicable to the petitioners as the amendment governs the period of training thereafter.
- The denial of permission to appear in the Civil Services Examination does not suffer from arbitrariness.
Accordingly, the writ petitions were dismissed.
Case Details:
Case Title: Abhimanyu Singh and Anr v. Union of India and Ors. (and connected matters)
Case No.: W.P.(C) 171/2026 & CM APPL. 847/2026 (and connected matters)
Coram: Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan
Counsel for Petitioners: Mr. Shrey Kapoor, Mr. Nishit Agrawal, Ms. Kanishka Mittal, Ms. Deepti Rathi
Counsel for Respondents: Ms. Monika Arora (CGSC), Mr. Debasish Mishra (GP), Mr. Shashank Dixit (CGSC), Mr. Subhrodeep Saha, Mr. Prabhat Kumar
