A Governing Body resolution cannot relax prescribed recruitment qualifications absent Central Government approval.

The petitioner was initially appointed as a Tutor in the Kalakshetra Foundation on 1 October 1993, promoted as Lecturer on 1 August 2003, Assistant Professor on 19 April 2014, and Professor on 29 June 2022.

The Kalakshetra Foundation issued a notification dated 8 October 2023 inviting applications for appointment to the post of Principal on contract basis.

The petitioner challenged the notification under Article 226 of the Constitution, contending that he was entitled to be considered for promotion and that the Foundation’s Governing Board had resolved on 17 March 2015 to consider aggregate service in the Foundation as an eligibility criterion.

The respondents contended that the applicable Kalakshetra Foundation Recruitment Regulations, 2005 required seven years of approved service in the grade of Professor, that the 2015 resolution had not been approved or incorporated into the Regulations, and that the petitioner had also crossed the prescribed age limit.

Whether the petitioner, having been promoted as Professor only on 29 June 2022, possessed the prescribed qualification of seven years’ approved service in the grade of Professor for consideration for appointment as Principal

Whether the Governing Board’s resolution dated 17 March 2015, providing for consideration of aggregate service in the Foundation, displaced or relaxed the seven-year experience requirement under the Recruitment Regulations, 2005

Whether the respondents were entitled to issue the impugned notification by resorting to an alternative mode of appointment when no eligible candidate was available for promotion

The Court applied the Kalakshetra Foundation Recruitment Regulations, 2005, under which the post of Principal was to be filled first by promotion and, failing that, through other prescribed modes including transfer on deputation, short-term contract, or appointment of suitable officers from recognised Central or State autonomous institutions.

The Regulations required a candidate for appointment as Principal to be a Professor with seven years of approved service in the grade of Professor.

Under Rule 6 of the Regulations, the power to relax the regulatory requirements vested in the Central Government; consequently, a Governing Board resolution by itself could not alter or relax the prescribed qualification unless approved and acted upon by the Central Government.

The Court also applied the principle that an employer may resort to the next prescribed mode of appointment when no eligible candidate is available for promotion.

The Court held that the petitioner had become a Professor only on 29 June 2022 and therefore did not possess seven years of approved service in that grade when the notification was issued in October 2023.

Accordingly, he was not eligible for consideration for promotion under the existing Regulations.

Although the Governing Board had resolved in 2015 to consider aggregate service in the Foundation, that resolution had neither been approved by the Central Government nor incorporated into the Regulations.

Since the statutory power of relaxation rested with the Central Government under Rule 6, the resolution could not independently confer eligibility on the petitioner.

In the absence of an eligible candidate for promotion, the respondents were entitled to proceed to the next prescribed mode of appointment and issue the notification.

The Court expressly declined to adjudicate the petitioner’s comparative suitability, holding that the determinative question was whether he possessed the prescribed experience qualification.

The 2015 Governing Board resolution did not, by itself, relax or replace the qualification prescribed by the Recruitment Regulations, and the respondents were entitled to issue the notification when no eligible candidate was available for promotion.

The writ petition was dismissed, the impugned notification was upheld, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed without costs.