Appointment of officers

Related judgements & precedents

These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.

1. Devender Singh vs Union of India

   Supreme Court of India 10 Mar 2022 Binding (Supreme Court) - Landmark Reportable

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   Where recruitment rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution contain a specific prescription (such as each Cadre Controlling Authority maintaining a separate cadre) and do not contain a provision enabling deviation from that prescription (such as absorption of persons from outside the cadre), executive instructions cannot be invoked to supplement or override such rules. The absence of a specific enabling provision in the rules indicates a deliberate policy choice, and that choice cannot be overridden through administrative directions or executive instructions issued under Articles 73 or 162. While employees do not have a fundamental right to transfer, the State must ensure that policies affecting conditions of service, particularly those impacting family life and dignity of employees, are informed by constitutional values of substantive equality and reasonable accommodation. In the absence of a specific legislative or rule-based framework permitting a particular benefit, courts cannot compel the executive to frame a specific policy, but they can require the State to take constitutional values into consideration when crafting policies.

   On this section: Power of the Board to appoint officers under the GST regime; cited to demonstrate similar authority in GST administration

   Read the full order on eCourts India

2. Jugan Singh vs Union of India

   Supreme Court of India 10 Mar 2022 Binding (Supreme Court) Reportable

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   Recruitment rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution prevail over executive instructions and administrative policies when there is conflict. Where recruitment rules contain a specific provision establishing separate cadres for each controlling authority and do not contain an enabling provision for absorption of personnel from other cadres, inter-commissionerate transfers by way of absorption are not permissible, even if earlier rules contained such a provision. However, the State as a model employer must ensure that in formulating service policies, it takes into account constitutional values of equality, dignity, family life, gender justice and reasonable accommodation for disabled persons. The absence of a specific enabling provision in recruitment rules can be supplemented by properly calibrated administrative policy that accommodates genuine compassionate, spousal and disability-related needs while maintaining cadre integrity and administrative stability.

   On this section: Board may appoint officers under the CGST Act; establishes parallel power for GST administration

   Read the full order on eCourts India

The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.