Administrative notifications cannot override statutory recruitment rules permitting promotion to Assistant Librarian.

Rambir, belonging to the Scheduled Caste category, was appointed as a Professional Assistant in Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) on 10 September 2010.

After completing five years of service, he claimed promotion to Assistant Librarian.

A Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) convened on 14 September 2017 considered two vacancies, including one reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates, but did not recommend Rambir on the ground that he lacked the requisite M.A. degree.

After obtaining the degree, Rambir continued to seek consideration for promotion.

Pursuant to directions of the High Court, a DPC was convened on 14 June 2019, but his claim was rejected on the ground that the UGC Regulations, 2018 contained no provision for promotion from Professional Assistant to Assistant Librarian.

Rambir challenged the rejection before the learned Single Judge, who directed JNU to convene a DPC to consider him for promotion, subject to his satisfying the applicable criteria, with consequential benefits if recommended.

JNU and the UGC filed the present appeals against that judgment.

Whether the absence of a promotional provision in Regulation 4.7 of the UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment and Promotion of Teachers and Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2018 barred Rambir from being considered for promotion to Assistant Librarian under JNU’s Recruitment Rules.

Whether JNU’s notification dated 15 April 2019, providing for 100% direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Librarian, could amend or supersede the statutory Recruitment Rules providing 50% recruitment by promotion.

Regulation 4.7 of the UGC Regulations, 2018 prescribes the minimum qualifications for direct recruitment to the post of University Assistant Librarian, but does not prescribe or exhaustively determine the permissible modes of recruitment.

JNU’s Recruitment Rule 25 provided two modes of appointment to Assistant Librarian: 50% by promotion from Professional Assistants, subject to seniority, good record, five years’ continuous service and prescribed qualifications, and 50% by open/direct recruitment.

The Court also relied on UGC’s subsequent clarification that universities having competent-authority-approved Recruitment Rules could continue recruitment under those Rules.

The Court also relied on UGC’s RTI response stating that it had not prescribed uniform service conditions or promotion policies for non-teaching staff of central universities.

Applying Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Allahabad v. Izhar Hussain, (1989) 4 SCC 318, the Court held that administrative instructions may supplement statutory rules but cannot supplant, amend or abolish them.

The Court distinguished between prescribing eligibility qualifications and prescribing the mode of recruitment.

Regulation 4.7 dealt only with the minimum qualifications applicable when Assistant Librarians were appointed through direct recruitment; it did not prohibit promotion under an independent and applicable Recruitment Rule.

Since Rule 25 of JNU’s Recruitment Rules expressly reserved 50% of Assistant Librarian posts for promotion from Professional Assistants, the absence of a corresponding promotional provision in the UGC Regulations, 2018 did not extinguish Rambir’s right to be considered under the University’s Rules.

The UGC’s letter dated 8 March 2019 merely clarified that the UGC Regulations did not themselves provide for such promotion; it did not determine that JNU’s Recruitment Rule 25 had ceased to operate.

Further, JNU’s notification dated 15 April 2019, being an administrative instrument based on that clarification, could not validly convert a promotional post into a 100% direct-recruitment post or override the statutory Recruitment Rules.

Rambir was entitled to consideration for promotion under JNU’s Recruitment Rule 25, subject to fulfilment of the prescribed eligibility conditions.

Both appeals filed by JNU and the UGC were dismissed without costs.

JNU was directed to comply with the learned Single Judge’s directions and complete the process expeditiously, within six weeks from the date of furnishing a certified copy of the judgment to the competent authority.