Article 309 Overrides Central Council Regulations | State Recruitment Rules Prevail in Service Law Disputes : Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has reaffirmed that State recruitment rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution take precedence over recommendatory regulations issued by central medical councils, and that candidates who participate in a selection process without objection cannot later challenge its validity.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioner, a female candidate with a post-graduate degree in Unani medicine, applied for the post of Reader/Jarahat (Surgical) in Government Unani Medical Colleges under an advertisement issued by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (UPPSC) on 24.09.2019. The advertisement required an essential qualification of a five-year degree in Unani from a university or board registrable under the United Provinces Indian Medicine Act, 1939, and prescribed a post-graduate degree as a preferential qualification. The petitioner, who held a post-graduate degree, was interviewed but not selected. The respondent no. 4, who did not possess a post-graduate degree, was recommended for appointment by the UPPSC on 19.01.2022. The petitioner subsequently filed a writ petition seeking quashing of the recommendation and the advertisement itself, and further sought a writ of quo warranto against respondent no. 4.

Key Facts

• Advertisement No. 2 of 2019-20 dated 24.09.2019 advertised one post of Reader/Jarahat (General Category) under the U.P. AYUSH (Unani Department).
• Essential qualifications included: (1) Five-year Unani degree registrable under the United Provinces Indian Medicine Act, 1939; (2) Seven years teaching experience (five years for post-graduates); (3) Working knowledge of Hindi, English, and Urdu/Arabic/Persian.
• Preferential qualifications: (1) Post-graduate degree from a recognized institution; (2) Research publications.
• The petitioner possessed a post-graduate degree and applied on 24.09.2019.
• The petitioner participated in the written examination and interview without raising any objection to the advertisement’s terms.
• Respondent no. 4, who did not hold a post-graduate degree, was recommended for appointment on 19.01.2022.
• The petitioner filed the writ petition on 15.02.2022, after the selection process concluded.
• The petitioner later amended the petition to challenge the advertisement and seek quo warranto against respondent no. 4.

Procedural History

• 24.09.2019: UPPSC issued Advertisement No. 2 of 2019-20 for the post of Reader/Jarahat.
• October - December 2019: Petitioner applied and appeared for written examination.
• January 2020: Petitioner appeared for interview.
• 19.01.2022: UPPSC recommended respondent no. 4 for appointment.
• 15.02.2022: Writ Petition (No. 835 of 2022) filed before the Allahabad High Court seeking quashing of recommendation.
• 05.04.2022: Petitioner amended petition to challenge the advertisement and seek quo warranto.
• 13.04.2026: Judgment reserved.
• 08.05.2026: Judgment delivered.

The Parties' Positions

For the Petitioner

• Argued that the advertisement’s reference to the United Provinces Indian Medicine Act, 1939, was invalid as it had been superseded by the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970.
• Contended that regulations under Section 36 of the 1970 Act mandated post-graduate qualifications for Reader posts, making the advertisement non-compliant.
• Asserted that as a post-graduate candidate, she was entitled to preference over respondent no. 4.
• Relied on Anand Kumar Yadav v. Union of India and Ashish Kumar v. State of U.P. to argue that statutory rules override advertisements.

For the Respondents

• Submitted that the Uttar Pradesh State Ayurvedic and Unani Colleges Teachers’ Service Rules, 1990, framed under Article 309, validly prescribed the qualifications.
• Argued that the 1939 Act remained in force as it was not challenged, and the 1990 Rules were constitutionally valid.
• Stated that regulations under the 1970 Act are recommendatory and cannot override State recruitment rules.
• Relied on Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi, Madras Institute v. Sivasubramaniyan, and Government of A.P. v. Dr. R. Murali Babu Rao to assert that State rules prevail.
• Contended that the petitioner, having participated without objection, was estopped from challenging the process.
• Opposed the quo warranto prayer, citing Kundan Singh v. State of U.P. and Dr. Neetu Singh v. State of U.P., holding that teaching posts are not public offices amenable to quo warranto.

Relief Sought

The petitioner sought:

• Quashing of the UPPSC recommendation dated 19.01.2022.
• Quashing of the advertisement dated 24.09.2019.
• Appointment to the post of Reader/Jarahat (Surgical).
• Writ of quo warranto against respondent no. 4 to declare her appointment illegal.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether State recruitment rules framed under Article 309 can prescribe qualifications based on a repealed State Act (1939) when a Central Act (1970) governs medical education, and whether a candidate who participates in a selection process without objection can later challenge the advertisement or the selection outcome.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioner

The petitioner argued that the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, enacted under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List, had superseded the United Provinces Indian Medicine Act, 1939. Consequently, the 1990 Rules, which referenced the 1939 Act, were ultra vires and repugnant to the Central Act. The petitioner relied on Ashish Kumar v. State of U.P. and Malik Mazhar Sultan v. U.P. PSC to assert that any advertisement conflicting with statutory rules is void. She further contended that her post-graduate qualification entitled her to preferential appointment under the advertisement’s terms.

For the Respondent

The State countered that Article 309 empowers the State to frame recruitment rules for its public services, and the 1990 Rules were validly framed under this provision. The regulations issued by the Central Council under the 1970 Act were merely recommendatory, as held in Government of A.P. v. Dr. R. Murali Babu Rao. The State further argued that the petitioner, having participated in the selection process without raising any objection to the advertisement’s terms, was estopped from challenging it post-selection. The quo warranto prayer was rejected on the ground that teaching posts are not public offices under the writ’s purview.

The Court's Analysis

The Court undertook a detailed examination of constitutional provisions, statutory frameworks, and binding precedents. It emphasized that while medical education is a subject under the Concurrent List, the recruitment of teachers for State-run institutions falls exclusively under the State’s domain under Article 309. The proviso to Article 309 permits the State to frame rules governing conditions of service, including qualifications for appointment.

"The regulations framed under Section 36 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 are only recommendatory and not mandatory. It is not for the Council to prescribe qualifications for recruitment to posts of Professors, Readers and Lecturers. Such qualifications have necessarily to be prescribed by the framing of Rules under the proviso to Article 309."

The Court relied on Government of A.P. v. Dr. R. Murali Babu Rao and Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi to affirm that State rules framed under Article 309 override conflicting Central Council recommendations. The reference to the 1939 Act in the advertisement was not invalid, as the 1990 Rules - still in force and unchallenged - expressly incorporated it. The Court held that the petitioner’s failure to challenge the advertisement prior to or during the selection process barred her from seeking its quashing after the result was declared.

"When a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair."

Regarding the preferential qualification, the Court cited Secretary, Health Department v. Dr. Anita Puri and State of U.P. v. Om Prakash to clarify that preference does not equate to automatic entitlement. Preference applies only when candidates are otherwise equally qualified on merit. Since respondent no. 4 met the essential qualifications and was selected on merit, the petitioner’s post-graduate status did not entitle her to the post.

The Court further held that the post of Reader/Jarahat is not a public office within the meaning of quo warranto, as it is a service position under a statutory body, not a public functionary position. The petitioner’s prayer for quo warranto was therefore dismissed.

The Verdict

The writ petition was dismissed. The Court upheld the UPPSC’s recommendation dated 19.01.2022 for the appointment of respondent no. 4. The advertisement dated 24.09.2019 was not quashed, as it complied with the validly framed 1990 Rules. The petitioner’s claim for appointment was rejected. The interim order previously granted was vacated. The respondents were directed to act upon the UPPSC’s recommendation without delay.

What This Means For Similar Cases

State Recruitment Rules Prevail Over Central Recommendations

• Practitioners must recognize that State rules under Article 309 govern recruitment to State public service posts, even where Central Acts regulate professional education.
• Challenges to advertisements based on alleged conflict with Central Council regulations will fail unless the State rules themselves are invalidated.
• Always verify whether the challenged advertisement references a valid, unchallenged State rule before filing a petition.

Participation Without Objection Bars Post-Selection Challenges

• Candidates who apply, appear for exams, and attend interviews without raising objections to the advertisement’s terms are estopped from challenging the process after failure.
• Writ petitions filed after selection outcomes are known are likely to be dismissed on grounds of laches and acquiescence.
• Legal strategy must include pre-application objections or formal representations to the recruiting authority before participating.

Preference ≠ Automatic Entitlement

• Preferential qualifications listed in advertisements do not guarantee selection.

• Preference applies only in cases of equal merit among eligible candidates.

• Practitioners must advise clients that possessing a preferential qualification alone is insufficient to claim appointment.

• Always assess whether the candidate’s merit score was equal to the selected candidate before invoking preference.

• Do not file petitions based solely on preferential qualifications unless merit parity is established.

• Always challenge advertisement terms before applying or during the application window - not after selection.

• Quo warranto is not available against teaching posts in State-run institutions; consider alternative remedies such as service law petitions or writs of mandamus for illegal appointments.