Executive Instruction Cannot Create Recruitment Preferences That Effectively Amend Statutory Rules or Supersede Comparative Merit

In November 2015, the Gujarat Public Service Commission (GPSC) advertised for the post of Assistant Professor in Industrial Engineering.

The recruitment was governed by the 2011 Recruitment Rules, which required a degree in the "relevant branch" or an "equivalent qualification recognized by the Government"

Initially, the notification listed no allied/equivalent disciplines for Industrial Engineering

On June 14, 2016, the Government issued a Resolution (GR) declaring certain degrees as equivalent but added a "preference" clause stating that candidates with degrees in equivalent branches would only be considered if candidates from the "basic degree branch" (relevant branch) were unavailable

The appellant (Mechanical Engineering degree plus PG in Industrial Engineering) and respondent no. 3 (Industrial Engineering degree) both applied. The appellant scored 61 marks in the interview, while respondent no. 3 scored 20 marks

Relying on the GR's preference clause, a Single Judge set aside the appellant’s selection in favor of the less-meritorious respondent no. 3

The court applied the Assistant Professor, Class-II in Engineering and Technology Recruitment Rules, 2011, which define eligibility as possessing a degree in a relevant branch or an equivalent qualification recognized by the Government

the constitutional principle that executive power under Article 162 is co-extensive with legislative power but cannot be exercised to override or amend statutory rules framed under the Proviso to Article 309

Dr. Krushna Chandra Sahu v. State of Orissa [(1995) 6 SCC 1] to establish that executive instructions can only fill gaps where rules are silent, but cannot traverse beyond the specific power conferred by a rule

The court reasoned that the 2011 Rules conferred only a limited power upon the Government: the power to "recognize" equivalence

Once the Government issued the GR declaring Mechanical Engineering as equivalent to Industrial Engineering, both candidates became legally "on par"

The court held that the Government exceeded its jurisdiction by adding a "preference" clause in the GR, as this effectively amended the recruitment criteria without following the procedure under Article 309

The court observed that if two qualifications are declared equal, their comparative merit (marks) must be the sole criteria for selection

Granting a preference to the "basic branch" candidate effectively rendered the concept of "equivalence" illusory and the recruitment process discriminatory against more meritorious candidates

Furthermore, since statutory rules already occupied the field, the Government could not invoke Article 162 to impose conditions (preference) not found in the original Rules

The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Single Judge’s judgment

The Court directed the respondents to act upon the recommendation of the appellant, as he was more meritorious than respondent no. 3

The request by respondent no. 3 for an interim stay/status quo was refused