Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

16. Learned senior counsel for the contesting respondent nos. 5 to 14 further submits that any executive instructions/ policy decisions taken in terms of power conferred by Article 73 and Article 162 to the respective Governments, namely, Union and the State Government would be subservient to recruitment rules, which have been framed under Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel relies on judgment of Bombay High Court in Rajesh and others vs Balu and others 2023 (6) ALL MR 93 and judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in S.K. Nausad Rahaman vs Union of India 2022 (12) SCC 1.
"25. Education, including technical education, medical education and universities, subject to the provisions of entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I; vocational and technical training of labour"

21. Articles 73, 162 and 246 of the Constitution of India provide as under:-

Article 73 of the Constitution of India "73. Extent of executive power of the Union. - (1) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the executive power of the Union shall extend--

24. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners Smt. Anu Chatrath has strenuously argued that the State Government cannot be allowed to ignore the directions issued by the executive of the Union. However, we differ, as Articles 73 and 162 of the Constitution of India relate to the executive powers of the Union and the corresponding provisions with regard to the executive powers of the State Government.

25. In Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur (supra) the aspect was discussed at length but where the statutory rules have been framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution by the State, directions issued by the executive under Article 73 of the Constitution cannot override such statutory rules and the corollary would be that the rules so framed would not be declared ultra vires to the Constitution merely because the Central Government by issuing executive instructions takes a 12 of 20 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045189-DB CWP No. 37892 of 2018 2024:PHHC:045189-DB -13- view different from the statutory rules framed by the State Government for appointment of persons and requisite qualifications laid down for the purpose.

35. The view taken by Bombay High Court in Rajesh's case (supra) is somewhat similar to the view taken in S. K. Nausad Rahaman's case (supra), which can be countenanced wherein the similar view taken by us has been observed, which is as under:-

"19. In the light of the above, the Tribunal has grossly erred in blindly following the decisions of the High Courts which held that the administrative guidelines issued by the DGT under Article 73 will have primacy over the recruitment rules framed by the State under Article 309. For the reasons given by us, so long as the field for providing for the qualification for the post of craft instructor is not occupied by a law made by the Parliament under Entry No.66 of List I from Seventh Schedule, the executive instructions issued by the respondent - DGT by resorting to Article 73 will not supersede the Recruitment Rules, 1983 framed under Article 309 pursuant to which the impugned advertisement was issued. The observations and conclusions which form the basis for the Tribunal to pass the impugned order are clearly unsustainable in law.