Dhananjay Malik & Ors Vs. State of Uttaranchal & Ors  INSC 372 (5 March 2008)
H.K. SEMA & MARKANDEY KATJU CIVIL APPEAL NO 1771 OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P.( c ) N0 1466 of 2006)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1772 OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P ( C ) No. 2743 of 2006 AND
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1773 OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P ( C ) No.7989 of 2006) H.K.
SEMA,J 1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated
16.12.2005 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Uttaranchal at
Nainital in Special Appeal No.18 of 2004.
3. Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.1466 and 2743 of 2006 have been filed
by the selected candidates. The High Court by the impugned order set aside the
entire selection and appointments of Assistant Teachers (Physical Education) in
Garhwal Mandal. According to the High Court, the selection and appointments
were made in violation of the Rules. By an interim order dated 27.1.2006 this
Court stayed the operation of the order of the High Court and, therefore, they
are still holding the posts, for which they have been selected.
4. An advertisement was issued on 24.6.2002 for Garhwal Region for the
selection and appointment of the Physical Education Teachers (L.T.Grade). The
requisite qualification indicated in the advertisement is B.P.E. or Graduate
with Diploma in Physical Education. The unsuccessful candidates in the
interview challenged the selected candidates on various grounds. One of the
grounds was that the advertisement and selection were not based in accordance
with the Rules called U.P. Subordinate Educational (Trained Graduates Grade)
Service Rules, 1983 (in short the Rules). We will examine the Rules a little
later. The unsuccessful writ petitions were dismissed by the Single Judge. On
appeal by the unsuccessful candidates, the order of the Single Judge was
reversed and the appeals were allowed. Hence, these appeals by special leave.
5. We have heard the parties.
6. Before we proceed further we may point out at this stage that the writ
petitions were rightly dismissed by the Single Judge and the Division Bench of
the High Court fell in error in entertaining the appeals.
7. It is not disputed that the writ petitioners- respondents herein
participated in the process of selection knowing fully well that the
educational qualification was clearly indicated in the advertisement itself as
B.P.E. or graduate with diploma in physical education. Having unsuccessfully
participated in the process of selection without any demur they are estopped
from challenging the selection criterion inter alia that the advertisement and
selection with regard to requisite educational qualifications were contrary to
8. In Madan Lal vs. State of J & K, (1995) 3 SCC 486, this Court pointed
out that when the petitioners appeared at the oral interview conducted by the
Members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as
the contesting respondents concerned, the petitioners took a chance to get
themselves selected at the said oral interview. Therefore, only because they
did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their
combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed
writ petitions. This Court further pointed out that if a candidate takes a
calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result
of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently
contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was
not properly constituted. In the present case, as already pointed out, the writ
petitioners- respondents herein participated in the selection process without
any demur; they are estopped from complaining that the selection process was
not in accordance with the Rules. If they think that the advertisement and
selection process were not in accordance with the Rules they could have
challenged the advertisement and selection process without participating in the
selection process. This has not been done.
9. In a recent judgment in the case of Marripati Nagaraja vs. The Government
of Andhra Pradesh, (2007) 11 SCR 506 at p.516 SCR this Court has succinctly
held that the appellants had appeared at the examination without any demur.
They did not question the validity of fixing the said date before the
appropriate authority. They are, therefore, estopped and precluded from
questioning the selection process.
10. We are of the view that the Division Bench of the High Court could have
dismissed the appeal on this score alone as has been done by the learned Single
11. The next question that arises for consideration is as to whether the
Government can, by way of administrative instructions, fill up the gaps and
supplement the rules and issue instructions not inconsistent with the rules
already framed, if rules are silent on any particular point?
12. The 1983 Rules prescribe the requisite educational qualifications for
the post of Assistant Teacher-physical education as under:- "Graduation
degree in Physical Education or Diploma in the Physical Education from any
recognised Institution." The aforesaid Rule has been clarified by the Government of India, Ministry
of Education, on 26.11.1965 to the effect that B.P.E degree holders should be
treated at par with those who hold B.A./B.Sc., B.Com degree plus a diploma in
physical education and should not be required to possess an additional
B.A.,B.Sc/B.Com. degree for purposes of employment as Directors of physical
education or on other similar posts. The aforesaid position has been further
clarified by the Government in paragraph 12 of its counter affidavit that
qualification of B.P.E. includes the graduation as well as diploma of physical
13. A Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Sant Ram Sharma vs.
State of Rajasthan, AIR 1967 SC 1910, has pointed out at p.1914 SC that the
Government cannot amend or supersede statutory Rules by administrative
instructions, but if the rules are silent on any particular point Government
can fill up the gaps and supplement the rules and issue instructions not
inconsistent with the rules already framed.
14. The aforesaid ruling has been reiterated in paragraph 9 of the judgment
by a three Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Union of India vs. K.P.
Joseph, (1973) 1 SCC 194, as under: "Generally speaking, an administrative Order confers no justiciable
right, but this rule, like all other general rules, is subject to exceptions. This Court has held in Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and Another, AIR 1967 SC 1910, that although Government
cannot supersede statutory rules by administrative instructions, yet, if the
rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution are silent on any particular
point, the Government can fill up gaps and supplement the rules and issue
instructions not inconsistent with the rules already framed and these
instructions will govern the conditions of service."
15. For the reasons aforestated, Civil Appeals arising out of Special Leave
Petition (Civil) Nos. 1466 and 2743 of 2006 filed by the successful candidates
are allowed. The impugned judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High
Court is set aside. No costs. CIVIL APPEAL ARISING OUT OF S.L.P ( C ) No.7989 of 2006
16. This appeal filed by the non-selected candidates is dismissed.