Statutory Recruitment Rules Prevail Over Administrative Instructions Absent Explicit State Adoption and Amendment

The Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission issued an advertisement on 16.02.2024 for the recruitment of Instructors for Government Industrial Training Institutes (ITIs)

The advertisement, based on the Uttarakhand Government Industrial Training Institute (Instructor) Service Rules, 2003 (amended in 2022), made the National Craft Instructor Certificate (NCIC) an essential eligibility requirement

The petitioners, who did not possess the NCIC, challenged this requirement, citing an Office Memorandum (OM) dated 30.06.2023 issued by the Director General of Training (DGT), Government of India

This OM relaxed the NCIC from an "essential" to a "preferential" qualification due to the non-availability of trained candidates

The petitioners sought permission to participate in the recruitment process, arguing that the DGT guidelines should override the State Service Rules

1. Whether the Office Memorandum dated 30.06.2023 issued by the DGT has an overriding effect over the statutory Service Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India.

2. Whether the eligibility criteria (educational qualification) can be changed by the State or the Commission after the recruitment process has commenced via advertisement.

The Court primarily applied the hierarchy of legal norms where statutory rules framed under the Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution prevail over executive instructions or administrative orders

Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (2013) 16 SCC 147, which establishes that executive instructions can only supplement, but not supplant or contravene, statutory rules

Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court (2025) 2 SCC 1, which prohibits changing the "rules of the game" (eligibility criteria) midway through a recruitment process unless the extant rules specifically permit such a change

The Court reasoned that the 2003 Service Rules, specifically Rule 8, stipulate that while technical qualifications are determined by the DGT, they only become applicable in the State upon a specific order by the State Government

In this instance, although the State initially considered the DGT’s 2023 relaxation, it ultimately directed the Commission on 08.11.2024 to proceed with the existing rules due to a shortage of instructors, deferring any amendments to future recruitments

The Court held that the DGT’s OM cannot automatically override statutory rules framed under Article 309

Applying the Tej Prakash Pathak precedent, the Court found that the recruitment process began with the 16.02.2024 advertisement; therefore, changing the eligibility criteria to include those without NCIC would be legally impermissible as the 2003 Rules do not provide for midway changes

Finally, the Court noted that since 409 candidates with NCIC applied for 370 posts, even if the OM were applied, those with NCIC would retain priority, rendering the petitioners' claims practically moot

The Court answered that the State Government had not formally adopted the DGT's relaxation for the current recruitment cycle. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed, and the request for intervention by provisionally selected candidates was rejected. All interim reliefs were vacated.