Courts cannot compel amendment of Recruitment Rules framed under Article 309.

Respondent 1 joined as a Demonstrator in the Electronics Department of Meera Bai Polytechnic under the GNCTD.

Following the Madan Committee’s recommendations, the GNCTD adopted a revised staffing scheme under which the post of Lecturer was the lowest post in the teaching cadre, and existing employees were given eight years to acquire the prescribed qualifications.

By communication dated 7 March 1989, the Government of India approved a one-time relaxation permitting absorption as Lecturer of teachers possessing a diploma in the appropriate branch of engineering, a TTTI diploma, and five years’ teaching/professional experience; further promotion remained subject to the notified Recruitment Rules.

However, the amended Recruitment Rules notified on 11 October 1993 did not incorporate these alternative qualifications.

The respondent, who completed the TTTI diploma after being sponsored by the authorities, was appointed as Lecturer on an ad hoc basis from 30 June 1992.

The UPSC subsequently declined to regularise her because she did not possess the qualifications prescribed in the applicable Recruitment Rules and the Rules contained no provision for relaxation.

After successive proceedings before the Central Administrative Tribunal, the Tribunal directed the authorities to amend the Recruitment Rules to include the alternative qualification and thereafter consider the respondent’s absorption and consequential benefits.

The GNCTD challenged that order under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Whether the respondent was entitled to regularisation/absorption as Lecturer despite not possessing the qualifications prescribed under the applicable Recruitment Rules.

Whether the Tribunal could direct the GNCTD to amend the Recruitment Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution and thereafter consider the respondent for regularisation under the amended Rules.

Whether the respondent’s subsequent representations and the authorities’ correspondence created an enforceable right or a fresh cause of action for regularisation.

The Court applied the principle that appointment or regularisation to a public post must conform to the qualifications prescribed by the applicable Recruitment Rules; an administrative communication granting a one-time relaxation cannot, by itself, override or amend subsequently applicable statutory Recruitment Rules.

It further applied the constitutional principle that Recruitment Rules framed under Article 309 cannot be amended by judicial direction, and that courts and tribunals cannot compel the rule-making authority to enact, amend, or complete a proposed amendment to such Rules.

The Court also noted, without deciding, the respondents’ contention that the proceedings might be barred by res judicata, as it disposed of the matter on merits.

The Court held that the respondent admittedly did not possess the educational qualifications prescribed for the post of Lecturer under the applicable Recruitment Rules, and that the Rules contained no relaxation provision enabling her regularisation.

The 7 March 1989 Government of India communication granted only a one-time relaxation and did not itself amend the Recruitment Rules; significantly, the 1993 amended Rules omitted the alternative qualification.

The respondent’s continued ad hoc service until superannuation could not create an entitlement to regular appointment contrary to the governing Rules.

The Tribunal further erred in treating administrative proposals and correspondence as a concluded or tentative decision by the GNCTD to amend the Rules; no material established that any such decision had been taken.

Even assuming that a proposal existed, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to issue a positive mandamus compelling amendment of Article 309 Rules or to direct regularisation under Rules that had not been enacted.

The Tribunal’s judgment was quashed and set aside, and the writ petition was allowed without any order as to costs.