Govt's Administrative Directions Cannot Substitute Statutory Rules, Can Only Fill Gaps When Law Is Silent: Chhattisgarh HC

In a recent case, the Chhattisgarh High Court held that it is impermissible for the Government to change or amend the statutory rules via administrative decisions. However, the court stated that in case the rules are silent on certain points, then there's no impediment in filling the gaps or supplementing the rules through administrative/executive decisions.

“It is the settled proposition of law that the Government cannot amend or substitute 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 by issuing instructions not inconsistent with the rules.”, the bench comprising Justices Goutam Bhaduri and Radhakishan Agrawal said.

The aforesaid observation of the Court came while granting relief to a Railway employee/respondent who was denied a promotion to the post of Chief Public Relation Officer (CPRO) despite a provisioning of the same by not constituting the Departmental Promotion Meeting (“DPC”) as per the Indian Railways Public Relations Department (Group 'A' & 'B' posts) Recruitment Rules, 1982.

The Railways claimed that the respondent is not entitled to the said promotion to the post of CPRO as the 1982 Rules allowed the deviation to be carried out by the Railways as it was subject to variation depending on the workload.

In short, the railways argued that it could supplant the rules so that the post of CPRO could be filled as per the requirement of the Railways subject to the workload. Hence, it supported its decision to reduce the posts of CPRO.

Rejecting the railway's arguments, the court held that the policy decision on the administrative side cannot violate the rules governing the promotion of respondent to CPRO.

Reference was made to the case of Union of India and Others v Mange Lal decided in Civil Appeal No.5006 of 2012 where the Supreme Court laid down the principle that the executive instructions can supplement a statute or cover areas to which the statute does not extend and a statutory rule cannot be modified or amended by executive instructions.

“The submission of the petitioner that the subject rules gives the power to make vary the posts cannot be considered, as the rules itself are specific and the policy on which the Railways want to bank upon would show that the specific policy having been declared for filling up posts cannot run contrary to the rules.”, the court noted.

In light of the aforesaid observations, the court dismissed the Railways appeal and upheld the order of the CAT which held in the respondent's favor.

Appearance:

For Petitioner : Shri Palash Tiwari, Advocate

For Respondent : Shri Abhishek Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Shri A.V. Sridhar and Ms Kushboo Dua, Advocates

Case Details: Union Of India Through Secretary, Railway Board & Ors. Versus Santosh Kumar, WPS No. 8786 of 2023

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (CHH) 16

Click here to read/download the judgment