Case Note & Summary
The case involved an appeal by special leave before the Supreme Court of India against a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur Bench, dated February 10, 1981, in Miscellaneous Petition No. 812 of 1980. The dispute arose in the context of recruitment to the post of Assistant Director Veterinary Service in the Madhya Pradesh Veterinary Services, which was governed by the Madhya Pradesh Services (Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 1966. The appellants, who were working as Veterinary Assistant Surgeons, challenged an advertisement issued by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission for 28 posts of Assistant Directors. The rules at the relevant time provided for recruitment from two sources, namely, direct recruitment and promotion, in the proportion of one is to one. The appellants contended that the Government had decided to fill the posts entirely by promotion from the feeder cadre of Veterinary Assistant Surgeons, but the High Court found as a fact that the rules had not been amended as on the date of the notification. The unamended rules therefore continued to govern, permitting direct recruitment for 50% of the vacancies. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court, holding that a mere government decision, without amendment of the rules, could not alter the statutory recruitment method. The advertisement and selection for direct recruitment were thus in accordance with the unamended rules. The court found no illegality warranting interference and dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs. The judgment reaffirmed the principle that recruitment to public posts must strictly follow the rules in force at the relevant time and that executive decisions cannot override statutory rules unless duly amended.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Recruitment Rules - Amendment and Source of Recruitment - Madhya Pradesh Services (Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 1966 - The appellants, veterinary assistant surgeons, challenged the advertisement and selection for 28 posts of Assistant Director Veterinary Service on the ground that the government had decided to provide recruitment to the post by promotion with 100% from the feeder cadre. The High Court found as a fact that as on the date of the notification, the rules were not amended and the unamended rules provided for direct recruitment and promotion in the proportion of one is to one. The Supreme Court held that the advertisement and consequential selection for the 50% vacancies earmarked for direct recruitment were in accordance with the unamended rules and dismissed the appeal, finding no illegality warranting interference. Held that a government decision to change the method of recruitment has no legal effect until the relevant rules are amended. (Para 1)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the advertisement and selection for 28 posts of Assistant Directors by direct recruitment were valid when the government had decided to fill the posts by 100% promotion from the feeder cadre, but the rules had not been amended and still provided for direct recruitment and promotion in the ratio of one is to one.
Final Decision
The appeal was dismissed. The Supreme Court held that the advertisement and selection for direct recruitment of 50% vacancies earmarked for direct recruitment were in accordance with the unamended rules. No costs.
Law Points
- Recruitment to public posts is governed by rules in force on date of notification
- government decision to change recruitment method has no effect until rules amended
- unamended rules providing direct recruitment and promotion in ratio of one is to one validated direct recruitment for 50% vacancies
- no illegality in advertisement and selection under unamended rules
