Administrative exigency cannot override statutory recruitment rules prescribing specific modes of recruitment or promotion.

The applicant, a degree holder in Civil Engineering, was appointed as a Supervisor in the Fisheries Department in 2000 and subsequently regularized as a Junior Engineer Grade-II

Following the J Fisheries (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 2009, he was regularized as an Assistant Aquaculture Engineer (AE) in 2011 and later placed as Incharge Aquaculture Engineer (AEE) on May 22, 2013, against an available vacancy

On June 13, 2013, the Government issued Order No. 197-PW (R), transferring respondent No. 4—an officer from the Public Works (R) Department—to the Fisheries Department against the post of AEE

Subsequently, via Fisheries Order No. 137/2013, the applicant’s territorial jurisdiction was curtailed and several districts/projects were reassigned to respondent No. 4

The applicant challenged these orders, asserting that the Recruitment Rules do not permit appointment by transfer for the AEE post and sought regularization of his own services

1. Whether the appointment of an officer from the Public Works (R) Department to the post of Aquaculture Engineer (AEE) in the Fisheries Department by way of transfer is legally sustainable under the J Fisheries (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 2009

2. Whether the administrative exigency and "temporary arrangement" pleaded by the State can override statutory Recruitment Rules

3. Whether the applicant is entitled to be considered for regular promotion to the post of AEE

The court primarily applied the J Fisheries (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 2009, which stipulate that the post of Aquaculture Engineer (AEE) must be filled exclusively by promotion from Assistant Aquaculture Engineers (AE) with the prescribed experience, with no provision for appointment by transfer from external departments

It further relied on the settled legal principle that administrative convenience or necessity cannot override statutory recruitment rules; any appointment made dehors (outside) the rules is legally unsustainable

The Tribunal observed that the 2009 Recruitment Rules provide a specific, exclusive method for filling AEE posts through promotion from the cadre of Assistant Aquaculture Engineers

Since respondent No. 4 belonged to the Public Works (R) Department and was not part of the Fisheries Cadre, his transfer was found to be in direct violation of the statutory scheme

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' defense of "administrative exigency," noting that such pleas cannot validate appointments made in breach of statutory rules

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the applicant was already functioning as Incharge AEE and met all eligibility criteria for promotion

By "importing" an officer from another department instead of convening a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) to regularize eligible in-service candidates, the respondents acted arbitrarily and prejudiced the applicant's promotional prospects and service rights

The Tribunal held that the applicant, being eligible and already serving as Incharge AEE, had a right to be considered for regular promotion

The respondents were directed to convene a DPC within three months to consider the applicant for regular promotion to the post of Aquaculture Engineer (AEE) in accordance with the 2009 Rules

If found fit, the applicant is to be regularized with effect from the date of eligibility or vacancy, with all consequential seniority and notional monetary benefits, and actual monetary benefits from the date of the order