DHANANJAY MALIK AND ORS. versus STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND ORS.

Citation: [2008] 3 S.C.R. 1035 · Decided: 05-03-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.K. SEMA · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-'· 
[2008] 3 S.C.R. 1035 
t-
DHANANJAY MALIK AND ORS. 
A 
' 
v. 
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No.1771 of 2008) 
MARCH 5, 2008 
B 
.\' 
.[H.K. SEMA AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.] 
Service Law - Selection - Selection criteria - Challenged 
by unsuccessful candidates - Held: The challenge is not 
sustainable - Unsuccessful candidates, having participated c 
in the selection process without any demur, were estopped from 
challenging the selection criteria - Rule of estoppel -
Applicability of. 
Administrative Law - Administrative instructions -
Issuance of, to fill up gaps and supplement Rules - Scope -
D 
~-
Held: Statutory Rules cannot be amended or superseded by 
administrative instructions, but if the rules are silent on any 
particular point, the Government can fill up gaps and 
supplement Rules and issue instructions not inconsistent with 
the Rules already framed - UP Subordinate Educational E 
(Trained Graduates Grade) Service Rules, 1983 - Constitution 
of India, 1950 - art. 309. 
The State Government issued advertisement for 
~ 
selection and appointment of Physical Education 
Teachers. The requisite qualification indica~ed in the F 
advertisement was B.P.E. or Graduate with Diploma in 
Physical Education. The unsuccessful candidates filed 
writ petitions challenging the selection criteria, viz. the 
requisite educational qualification indicated. They 
contended that the same were not in accordance with the G 
U.P. Subordinate Educational (Trained Graduates Grade) 
' 
Service Rules, 1983 which prescribed the requisite 
'( 
educational qualifications for the post of Physical 
Education teachers. The aforesaid Rule had been clarified 
1035 
H 
1036 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 3 S.C.R. 
A by the Government of India to the effect that B.P.E degree 
t 
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 
B Directors of physical education or on other similar posts. 
The aforesaid position has been further clarified by the 
~· 
Government in its counter affidavit that qualification of 
B.P.E. includes the graduation as well as diploma of 
physical education. The writ petitions filed by the 
c unsuccessful candidates were dismissed by the Single 
,, 
Judge of High Court. Appeal thereagainst was allowed 
by the Division Bench. 
In appeals to this Court the questions which arose 
for consideration were 1) Whether the unsuccessful 
D candidates were estopped from challenging the selection 
process and 2) 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 
E silent on any particular point. 
Allowing the appeals filed by successful candidates 
and dismissing the cross appeal filed by non-selected 
candidates, the Court 
F 
HELD:1. The writ petitioners before the High Court 
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 
G 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 the 
' • 
Rules. If they think that the advertisement and selection 
H proce$s were not in accordanee with the Rules they could 
, 
I 
DHANANJAY MALIK AND ORS. v. STATE OF 
1037 
UTTARANCHAL AND ORS. [H.K. SEMA, J.] 
~--
have challenged the advertisement and selection process A 
' 
without participating in the selection process. This has 
not been done. The Division Bench of the High Court could 
have dismissed the appeal on this score alone as has 
been done by the Single Judge. [Paras 7, 8, 10) [1038-G; 
1039-A, B, E, F; 1040-A] 
B 
" 
Madan Lal v. State of J & K (1995) 3 SCC 486 and 
Marripati Nagaraja v. Thf? Government of Andhra Pradesh 
(2007) 11 SCR 506 SCR - relied on. 
2. The Government cannot amend or supersede c 
statutory Rules by administrative instructions, but if the 
rules are silent on any particular point, the Government 
can fill up the gaps and supplement the rules and issue 
instructions not inconsistent with the rules already 
' 
framed.

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.