Whether executive orders can supplant statutory rules?

Shri. Bhatti, learned counsel for the petitioner assails this order on three counts. Firstly, it is submitted that the impugned order entails civil consequences and such adverse order could not have been passed without following principles of natural justice. Secondly, as per the circular of E-in-C dated 16.8.2012 (Annexure R-3) also, the recovery should have been made from the officer posted in establishment section of the department. Lastly, he submits that M.P. Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1977 are statutory in nature. With the rules, a statutory schedule is appended which makes it clear that for Class-III employees, the Office Head has full powers to grant the earned leave. The Executive Engineer, being the Office Head has granted earned leave to the petitioner, a Class-III employee. Thus, by way of issuing executive instruction, the power given under the rules cannot be supplanted.

 In the considered opinion of this court, petition deserves to succeed on point No. 3 putforth by Shri. M.S. Bhatti. This is trite law that by issuing executive instructions, statutory rules cannot be supplanted although same can be supplemented. Putting it differently, if the statutory rules recognize and approve that the Executive Engineer is the competent authority for grant of earned leave, the said power cannot be taken away by issuing the executive instructions. Since, earned leave in the present case is granted by the competent authority as per the schedule of the said rules, on executive fiat, the said power or benefit cannot be taken away. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 03.08.2016 cannot sustain judicial scrutiny.

  In the High Court of Madhya Pradesh

(Before Sujoy Paul, J.)

Piyush Verma v. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Print Page

Whether leave granted to govt servant by competent authority can be cancelled due to non observance of executive instruction?

 In the considered opinion of this court, petition deserves to succeed on point No. 3 putforth by Shri. M.S. Bhatti. This is trite law that by issuing executive instructions, statutory rules cannot be supplanted although same can be supplemented. Putting it differently, if the statutory rules recognize and approve that the Executive Engineer is the competent authority for grant of earned leave, the said power cannot be taken away by issuing the executive instructions. Since, earned leave in the present case is granted by the competent authority as per the schedule of the said rules, on executive fiat, the said power or benefit cannot be taken away. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 03.08.2016 cannot sustain judicial scrutiny.

       In the High Court of Madhya Pradesh

(Before Sujoy Paul, J.)

Piyush Verma v. The State of Madhya Pradesh

WP-15531-2016

Decided on February 27, 2018

Citation:2018 SCC OnLine MP 116

Print Page

Whether resolution passed by UGC regarding distance learning course is statutory in nature?

As regards the status and legal position of
the UGC, it was held that UGC Act, 1956, under which
it has been created, has a supervening influence over
all other Legislations on the subject of education for
maintenance of minimum standards in the country and
indisputably governs Open University also. Thus, the
resolution adopted in the 40th Meeting of the DEC dated
08-06-2012, Annexure P34, to confine the territorial
jurisdiction of the Private Universities within the
geographical limits of the States of its locations, having
been taken as a consequence of a policy decision of the
Government of India, it cannot be held to be
unauthorised and invalid. The policy decision
ultimately crystallised in the form of Order dated 29-
12-2012, Annexure R4. This Order having been issued
by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, 

Department of Higher Education, Government of India,
Respondent No.1, in exercise of its powers under SubSection
(1) of Section 20 of the UGC Act, 1956,
assumes a statutory character and would be considered
as part of the main Statute, i.e., UGC Act, 1956, and
binding upon all Universities irrespective of whether the
other Statutes including the ones under State
Legislations provide otherwise. This is so far as the
questions of law are concerned.
THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK

S.B. : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. P. WANGDI, JUDGE

WP(C) No.08 of 2015
Petitioners : 1. Mr. Pralhad Dani Chhetri,


 versus
Union of India


(29th June, 2015)
Citation:AIR 2016 (NOC) 560 skm

Print Page

Whether office orders can override statutory Rules?

 It is now a well settled principle of law that an executive order must be passed in conformity with the Rules. Power of the State Government to issue executive instructions is confined to filling up of the gaps or covering the area which otherwise has not been covered by the existing Rules. See Sant Ram Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. [AIR 1967 SC 1910] and D.D.A. and Ors. Vs. Joginder S. Monga and Ors. [(2004) 2 SCC 297]. Such office orders must be subservient to the statutory rules.

Supreme Court of India

Union Of India And Another vs Central Electrical & Mechanical ... on 1 November, 2007

Bench: S.B. Sinha, Harjit Singh Bedi

CASE NO.:Appeal (civil) 5086 of 2007

Print Page

Whether statutory rule will prevail over executive instruction in case of conflict?

 In DDA and others vs. Joginder S. Monga and others[1] discussing the situation of conflict between statutory rule and executive instruction, this Court has clarified as under:

“30. It is not a case where a conflict has arisen between a statute or a statutory rule on the one hand and an executive instruction, on the other. Only in a case where a conflict arises between a statute and an executive instruction, indisputably, the former will prevail over the latter. The lessor under the deed of lease is to fix the market value. It could do it areawise or plotwise. Once it does it areawise which being final and binding, it cannot resile therefrom at a later stage and take a stand that in a particular case it will fix the market value on the basis of the price disclosed in the agreement of sale.”

Supreme Court of India

State Of M.P. & Ors vs Anand Mohan & Anr on 9 July, 2015

Bench: Dipak Misra, Prafulla C. Pant

Print Page