Executive instructions cannot enlarge statutory eligibility by recognising allied postgraduate qualifications.

The petitioners, holding M.Sc. degrees in Botany and having qualified the CSIR-UGC examination, applied for appointment as Assistant Professor in Botany pursuant to the advertisement dated 17.12.2022.

The advertisement incorporated the eligibility instructions dated 11.11.2022 issued by the Director General, Higher Education, Haryana, which required a Master’s degree with 55% marks in a “concerned/relevant/allied subject”.

The governing Haryana Education (College Cadre) Group B Service Rules, 1986, as amended, prescribed a Master’s degree in the “relevant subject”.

During the interview held on 10.03.2023, the petitioners learned that candidates possessing M.Sc. degrees in Biotechnology and other allied subjects were also being considered for the Botany post.

They submitted a representation on 13.03.2023 and filed the present writ petition on 15.03.2023, challenging the inclusion of such candidates and relying upon the earlier judgment in Surender Singh v. State of Haryana, CWP-2510-2017, decided on 07.11.2022.

The Court applied Appendix B to Rule 7 of the Haryana Education (College Cadre) Group B Service Rules, 1986, as amended on 29.10.2002, which requires a Master’s degree with the prescribed marks in the “relevant subject” for direct recruitment.

It held that executive or administrative instructions may supplement statutory rules where the rules are silent but cannot amend, override, supersede, or enlarge a substantive statutory qualification.

Relying on Vijay Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and the Supreme Court authorities cited therein, the Court reiterated that statutory rules prevail over inconsistent executive instructions.

It further relied on Ashish Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 3 SCC 55, for the principle that an advertisement or recruitment instruction contrary to statutory rules cannot create eligibility or a right in favour of an otherwise ineligible candidate.

The earlier decision in Surender Singh v. State of Haryana supported the conclusion that candidates lacking a postgraduate degree in the relevant subject could not be treated as eligible merely by claiming equivalence or relevance of another subject.

The Court also relied on Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai v. State of Bihar, (2019) 20 SCC 17, to hold that participation in a selection process does not amount to acquiescence in an illegality.

Anand Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh was distinguished because the present case concerned interpretation of statutory recruitment rules, not determination of academic equivalence by the Court.

The statutory Rules expressly confined eligibility to a Master’s degree in the “relevant subject,” whereas the instructions dated 11.11.2022 added “allied subject” and thereby created an additional class of eligible candidates.

The Court held that this addition was substantive, not procedural, and therefore could not be introduced through executive instructions without amending the statutory Rules.

Consequently, the authorities could not rely on the instructions to treat candidates with M.Sc. Biotechnology as eligible for the Botany post.

The State’s reliance on UGC clarification and university equivalence lists did not alter the governing statutory requirement, since the Court was not required to decide whether Biotechnology was academically equivalent to Botany.

The challenge was also not barred by participation because the petitioners became aware of the alleged illegality only during the interview and approached the Court immediately thereafter.

The Court held that the instructions dated 11.11.2022 could not be relied upon to enlarge the statutory qualification by including an “allied subject”.

The respondents were directed to reconsider and reframe the selection process for Assistant Professor in Botany from the stage of determining eligibility and to proceed strictly under the applicable statutory Rules.

Candidates possessing a postgraduate degree in a subject other than Botany were not to be treated as eligible merely on the basis of the impugned instructions.

The Court clarified that it had not determined the academic equivalence of M.Sc. Biotechnology and M.Sc. Botany and had not directed appointment of either petitioner.