Administrative instructions cannot override the provisions of Recruitment Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT :

Heard A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. J.C. Lalnunsanga, learned Standing Counsel for Mizoram Public Service Commission (MPSC) for the respondent No. 5.

2. Brief facts of the case essential for disposal of the instant Writ Petition is that the six (6) petitioners are currently working as Inspector of Police (Ministerial) on being promoted on the same date i.e., 19.02.2016. As per the Mizoram Home (Police) Department (Group ‘A’ Post) Recruitment Rules, 2013 (Rules of 2013) which came into force with effect from 09.05.2014 i.e., the date of its publication in the Mizoram Gazzette, there are in all six (6) sanctioned posts of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Ministerial) DySP(M)]. The method of recruitment provided in Column 11 of the Schedule appended to the Rules of 2013 is 2/3 by promotion and 1/3 by Limited Departmental Examination (LDE). As per Column 12 in both cases, Inspector of Police (Ministerial) (Group ‘B’ Post), who have completed five (5) years of service in the grade are eligible to be considered or participate for promotion under the two (2) methods.

3. The State respondents in the Police Department vide Communication dated 12.11.2021 in view of the four (4) anticipated vacancies in the post of DySP(M) wrote to the State Government in the Home Department seeking approval for filling up the four (4) posts i.e., by way of LDE and two (2) posts by way of promotion. The proposal was approved by the State Government in the Home Department after obtaining the concurrence and approval of the Finance Department and Personnel & Administrative Reforms (DP&AR) (ARW) respectively. Thereafter, the same was conveyed to the MPSC vide letter dated 28.01.2022. As per the said Communication, two (2) posts were sought to be filled up by way of LDE. The petitioners aggrieved with the proposal for filling up two (2) posts of DSPM by way of LDE filed their representations through proper channel. In view of the representations, the scheduled date for conducting LDE was postponed. Subsequently, the representations of the petitioners came to be rejected by the DP&AR (ARW) and accordingly communicated to the Director General of Police. Consequently, the respondents have gone ahead with the process to fill up the two (2) posts of DySP(M) by way of LDE through the MPSC. Aggrieved with the same, the petitioners are before this Court.

4. This Court vide Order dated 14.11.2022 allowed the MPSC to conduct the examination for filling up the two (2) posts of DySP(M) by way of LDE but directed that the results of the examination should not be declared without the leave of this Court. The interim order continues as on date.

5. Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Rules of 2013 clearly provides the percentage of post to be filled up i.e., 2/3 by way of promotion and 1/3 by way of LDE and that presently, out of the six (6) sanction posts, two (2) posts have been filled up by way of LDE by promoting one Smt. Rotluangpuii Pachuau and Sh. C. Lalthlamuana as DySP(M) vide Notification dated 19.02.2021. Therefore, the four (4) posts remaining in terms of the Rules of 2013 are to be only filled up by way of promotion as per seniority. The learned counsel submits that the State respondents have taken the stand that vacancy based roster is to be maintained as per the Office Memorandum dated 09.08.2021 and therefore, as per the roster prepared, out of the four (4) vacancies, two (2) vacancies are to be filled up by LDE. He however submits that the Office Memorandum cannot overwrite the recruitment rules which have been framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and therefore, Court should interfere with the impugned actions of the State respondents in attempting to fill up the post of DySP(M) in excess of what has otherwise been provided by the Rules of 2013. In support of his submission, the learned counsel