The Maharashtra Public Service Commission, respondent no.3, issued an advertisement on 14.12.2012 to fill up a total of 33 posts of ACF through Maharashtra Forest Service Examination, 2012. The appellants applied for the post, for which the selection list was published on 13.06.2013. However, instead of issuing appointment orders appointing the appellants on probation, respondent no.1 issued a letter dated 19.06.2013 informing the appellants that they will be sent to preappointment training. The appellants claimed that their representation to remedy the same remained unanswered. The appellants thus filed an application before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal at Mumbai (hereinafter) referred to as the "Tribunal") for declaration that their appointment as ACF be considered from the date of commencement of the training and, that the training period undergone by them be considered as period of service.l They also sought a direction for payment of salary as per the pay scale prescribed for the post of ACF by considering the period of training as on probation/duty. The Tribunal in terms of its order dated 03.02.2016, partly allowed the application of the appellants. It was observed that the recruitment rules for the post of ACF in the Maharashtr forests Service Class II (hereinafter referred to as "the 1965 Rules"), which were accompaniment to the Government Resolution dated 17.02.1965, inter alia provided that a candidate was eligible for the post of ACF after completinlg the prescribed cource of / However, these Rules were not framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, and were never finalised, Moreover, the draft rules had been superseded by the 1998 Rules, as was also provided in the Premable of 1998 Rules. The respondents' plea that the candidate would be eligible to be given regular pay scale after successful completion of probation of three years, was turned down while opining that no reason was given for non-applicability of Rule 10 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (General Conditions of Services) Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the "1981 Rules"), whereby the person shall draw minimum of time scale attached to the post to which he is appointed. It was held that the appellants