Executive decisions cannot override recruitment rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution.

The petitioners were appointed as Lower Division Clerks (LDC) in 2011 under the Directorate of Health Services, Tripura

Per the Recruitment Rules (RR) dated 12.01.2023, the post of Upper Division Clerk (UDC) is to be filled 100% by promotion from the LDC grade, failing which by deputation, and finally by direct recruitment

On 05.10.2023, the State issued a notification absorbing three private respondents—who held the post of UDC (Law), a separate cadre—into the common cadre of UDC

The State contended that UDC (Law) was a "dying cadre" and the absorption was a policy decision approved by the Council of Ministers

The petitioners challenged this notification, alleging it violated the statutory RR and curtailed their promotional avenues

1. Whether the State can absorb employees from a foreign cadre (UDC-Law) into a common cadre (UDC) in contravention of the established Recruitment Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution.

2. Whether an administrative policy decision approved by the Cabinet can override statutory Recruitment Rules.

The court primarily applied the principle that rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution are statutory in nature and have binding effect, as held in A.K. Bhatnagar v. Union of India

It further relied on B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka, establishing that executive power cannot override rules framed under Article 309

Additionally, the court noted that while there is no fundamental right to promotion, there is a fundamental right to be considered for promotion, a principle reinforced in Bihar State Electricity Board v. Dharamdeo Das

It also referenced Zonunfela Rawihte v. State of Tripura regarding the lack of absolute immunity for policy decisions that are arbitrary or violative of fundamental rights

The Court observed that the RR for UDCs explicitly lists specific feeder posts for promotion (e.g., LDC-Store, LDC-Accounts), but does not include UDC (Law) or Law Clerk

The court rejected the State’s argument that the absorption was a valid exercise of "relaxation" power under Rule 6 of the RR, noting that the Cabinet memorandum and record of proceedings contained no mention of invoking such relaxation; thus, the plea was an "afterthought"

The Court reasoned that since the RR mandates a specific hierarchy (Promotion > Deputation > Direct Recruitment), filling vacancies via "absorption" from a different cadre is a direct violation of the statutory scheme

It was held that even a Cabinet-approved policy cannot deviate from rules having the force of law without an explicit amendment to those rules

The writ petition was allowed, and the notification dated 05.10.2023 was quashed

The Court granted the State liberty to re-examine the issue, suggesting they may consider merging cadres by increasing sanctioned strength or creating supernumerary posts, provided it does not prejudice the promotional rights of existing LDCs under the law