Promotion priority under housing board recruitment rules prevails over deputation, and executive directions cannot override regulations.

Regulation 3 of the Gujarat Housing Board Services Classifications of and Recruitment Regulations, 1981 was construed as a composite appointment scheme giving priority to promotion of eligible Housing Board Executive Engineers on a seniority-cum-merit basis before deputation from the State Government's Building and Communication Department. Clause (3) was not treated as an independent fourth source of appointment; it applied only when no suitable promotional candidate was available. The construction was adopted to avoid arbitrariness and uncanalised discretion. A direction issued under Section 82 of the Gujarat Housing Board Act, 1961 could not require action inconsistent with regulations framed under the Act with prior sanction.

---

---

Issues: Whether Regulation 3 of the Gujarat Housing Board Services Classifications of and Recruitment Regulations, 1981 permits appointment by deputation from the State Government's Building and Communication Department without first considering promotion from eligible Executive Engineers of the Housing Board, and whether a direction under Section 82 of the Gujarat Housing Board Act, 1961 can override the Regulations.

Analysis: Regulation 3 was read as a composite scheme governing three modes of filling the post. Clause (2) applied to promotion from the Housing Board's Executive Engineers on seniority-cum-merit. Clause (3) was not an independent fourth source of appointment; it only regulated deputation from the State Government's Building and Communication Department and operated only when no suitable eligible candidate was available for promotion from among the Housing Board's Executive Engineers. The construction that gave priority to promotion was preferred because it supplied a workable guideline and avoided arbitrariness and uncanalised discretion. A direction issued by the State Government under Section 82 could not validly require action contrary to the Regulations framed under the Act with prior sanction.

Conclusion: The deputation appointment could not be made without first considering eligible promotional candidates, and the State Government's contrary direction was invalid.

Ratio Decidendi: Regulations made under a parent statute with prior sanction must be construed to give effect to the prescribed sequence of appointments and to avoid arbitrariness, and executive directions cannot override such regulations.

---