A. P. RAVANI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is the Gujarat Food and Drugs Control Administration Gazetted Officers Association For the post of Joint Commissioner Gujarat Drugs Service Class-I advertisement dated 28/02/1989 has been issued by the respondent authorities By this advertisement applications for the post in question have been invited. This has given rise to this petition The petitioners pray that the rules providing for direct recruitment he declared illegal unconstitutional and void and the advertisement dated 28/02/1989 published in newspaper and produced at Annexure B also be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to make appointment to the post in question from the employees serving in the lower post of Deputy Commissioner. ( 2 ) THE Joint Director (Administration) Drugs Control Administration (Recruitment) Rules 1972 inter alia provide for appointment by direct recruitment to the post of Joint Director which has boon now designated as Joint Commissioner Rule 2 specifically provides that appointment to the post shall be made either (A) by promotion of a person of proved merit and efficiency from amongst the Deputy Directors working in the Drugs Control Administration or (B) by direct selection Rule 3 provides for eligibility criteria In case of direct selection to the post in question The eligibility criteria prescribed are as follows: (i) the candidate be not more than 40 years of age (ii) the candidate must possess post-graduate degree of a recognised University in Pharmacy or Pharmaceutical as special subject; and (iii) the candidate must possess about seven years experience after obtaining the prescribed qualifications in the manufacture or testing of drugs specified in Schedule C to the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules 1945; ( 3 ) THE petitioner contends that there is no guidelines as regards the quota or ratio of promotees and direct recruits for appointment to the post of Joint Commissioner. Since there is no fixed quota nor there is any guidelines contained in the rule the provision of rule is arbitrary and hence violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It may be noted that the post of Joint Commissioner is a Class-I post. It is a post of higher cadre in the administration. As one steps up higher in the ladder the appointing authority should have sufficient margin and wide discretion for selection of meritorious candidates for such posts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It may be noted that the post of Joint Commissioner is a Class-I post. It is a post of higher cadre in the administration. As one steps up higher in the ladder the appointing authority should have sufficient margin and wide discretion for selection of meritorious candidates for such posts. At the lower level or in the middle level in service ordinarily seniority or seniority-cum-merit may be the criterion. But as far as the posts in the highest cadre of administration are concerned the criterion is ordinarily suitability of the candidate concerned for the post in question. For judging suitability of the candidate from amongst the employees in service proved merit and efficiency is the criterion. For such posts ordinarily there cannot be fixed quota rule or ratio. The authority concerned must have sufficient discretion to select the most meritorious persons to man such posts. The omission to prescribe specified ratio for direct recruitment and for promotees would not render the rule otios. In absence of fixed quota or ratio all that would happen will he that the selecting authority will have discretion to resort to either of the two channels provided under the rules. When the legislature has not provided for fixed quota or ratio for the promotees and the direct recruits it necessarily implies that the legislature desired to confer wide discretion on the selecting and appointing authority. It may also be noted that even in case of promotees the eligibility criteria prescribed is proved merit and efficiency and not seniority. When the selecting and appointing authority resorts to either of the mode of appointment in both cases the authority concerned will be in a position to judge the merits of a candidate on the basis of objective material. It may be in the shape of service record of the candidate when the appointment is by way of promotion. In the other case the objective material will be in the shape of factual data regarding educational qualification and other relevant material with regard to experience etc. This material will be sufficient for the selecting and appointing authority to exercise their discretion in just fair and reasonable manner. It may also be noted that there is no material placed on record to show as to how many posts are there in the cadre of Joint Commissioner. This material will be sufficient for the selecting and appointing authority to exercise their discretion in just fair and reasonable manner. It may also be noted that there is no material placed on record to show as to how many posts are there in the cadre of Joint Commissioner. However it may be reasonably inferred and presumed that the number of posts in Class-I service will be few. Whenever the number of posts in the higher cadre is small or very small it would naturally he difficult to prescribe any fixed ratio for the direct recruits and promotees. On the contrary in such situation it would also be desirable that no such fixed ratio be prescribed and room for sufficient play by the selecting and appointing authority be provided. If this is not done it is very likely that doors for more meritorious and suitable persons may remain permanently closed. In this view of the matter omission to prescribe fixed ratio or quota appears to be rational and in conformity with the object to be achieved. ( 4 ) IT is not necessary that in all cases the legislature must provide for fixed quota or ratio and must prescribe guidelines in minute details. If such course is adopted while framing the rules it may happen that even for the selection of candidates for the higher posts the selecting and appointing authority will be left with no discretion at all. On the apprehension that the authority concerned will exercise its discretion arbitrarily the legality and validity of the provisions of any statute cannot be adjudged. On the contrary the presumption is that the power conferred shall be exercised reasonably and in just and fair manner. In a society governed by rule of law one need not wait for direction from the Parliament or from any other competent rule making authority for acting in just fair and reasonable manner. Hence the contention raised on the basis of the apprehension that the power will be exercised arbitrarily and unreasonably has no merits and the same is rejected. ( 5 ) IT is contended that the rules in question have been framed in the year 1972. Hence the contention raised on the basis of the apprehension that the power will be exercised arbitrarily and unreasonably has no merits and the same is rejected. ( 5 ) IT is contended that the rules in question have been framed in the year 1972. Rule 3 (iii) prescribes with regard to experience in the manufacture or testing of drugs specified in Schedule C to the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules 1945 Since the year 1945 there is expansion in various drugs on account of scientific research and further development. Hence it is submitted that if the experience is limited to drugs mentioned in Schedule C to the aforesaid Rules the persons having less experience are likely to be adjudged suitable Therefore the requirement with regard to experience provided in the Rule has become irrelevant. Hence it is submitted that this particular provision of the Rule should be held to be illegal and void. The argument over looks the fact that the qualification as regards experience prescribed is basic qualification. It does not say that the authority selecting a candidate shall not take into consideration other experience and other qualifications of the candidate concerned. In a developing society scientific research and development may take place continuously and during the course of years such research and development may reach considerably advanced stage. But that does not mean that the qualifications that may be prescribed for the post in question should also be changed from time to time. The rules do take care for such contingency. Rule 4 provides for probation for a period of two years. Rule 6 provides for post-training and passing of the examination after the training is over. It may again be noted that Rule 6 provides for training and passing of examination in case of direct selectees only. Therefore if there is. any lack of experience with respect to other drugs i. e. drugs which are not mentioned in Schedule C to the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules 1945 the same is taken care of by providing training after appointment. Thus this argument has also no force ant the same is required to be rejected. ( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner contends that the educational qualification for the post of Deputy Commissioner is Bachelors Degree. Thus this argument has also no force ant the same is required to be rejected. ( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner contends that the educational qualification for the post of Deputy Commissioner is Bachelors Degree. Similarly the educational qualification for the post of Controller of Drugs which is a pest higher to the post in question (i. e. Joint Commissioner) the minimum educational qualification required is that of Bachelors Degree in the subject concerned. Thus only for the post of Joint Commissioner at the middle level the educational qualification prescribed is that of post graduate degree. Hence this provision is arbitrary so contends the learned Counsel for the petitioner. In his submission it is against the policy decision taken by the General Administration Department. Learned Counsel for the petitioner refers to Annexure I to the petition which is extract from the Hand Book for Personnel Officers issued by the General Administration Department. On going through this document it is evident that it provides for general guidelines for framing rules. There is no policy decision as sought to be contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. In the General Guidelines in Clause 1. 2. (v) it is suggested that the minimum academic qualification in case of posts involving duties for which technical knowledge is considered necessary should be the same for persons to be promoted as well as for direct recruits. But as indicated hereinabove this is a general guideline ordinarily to be kept in mind. There is no such policy decision and hence it cannot be said that the educational qualification prescribed is against the policy decision of the General Administration Department. It may again be noted that even if there be any circular or general guideline issued by way of administrative guidelines it would not govern the provisions of the rules. The rules are statutory rules. Administrative guidelines cannot supersede or cannot render the provisions of any statutory rules illegal and void. In case of conflict between the guidelines issued by way of administrative instructions or circular and the provisions of statutory rules the provisions contained in the statutory rules must prevail. ( 7 ) IT is contended that by prescribing post graduate qualification the promotees are sought to be excluded for being considered for the post of Joint Commissioner. The argument has no merit. ( 7 ) IT is contended that by prescribing post graduate qualification the promotees are sought to be excluded for being considered for the post of Joint Commissioner. The argument has no merit. The promotees also can possess post graduate degree and can apply for the post in question. It is not that one who has entered service may not or cannot possess post graduate qualification. If a person in service fulfils the eligibility criteria for being directly selected he can also offer himself for being selected for the post in-question. ( 8 ) FOR the post of Joint Commissioner which is a post of middle level the educational qualification is of post graduation degree. The qualification prescribed cannot be held to be irrelevant. On the contrary if the scheme is property examined it is rational and it appears to have been so provided for the benefit of persons in service. The minimum educational qualification for the highest post of Controller of Drugs is only Bachelors Degree. This is also the basic minimum educational qualification for being appointed to the post of Deputy Director. A person in service who may not have acquired post graduate qualification and who might have proved his merit and efficiency may also reach upto the highest stage in the Department i. e. upto the post of Controller of Drugs. Such persons of proved merit and efficiency who reach upto the stage of Joint Commissioner on the basis of their merit and who possess only Bachelors Degree would not be asked to obtain post graduation degree for being eligible to be appointed to the post of Controller of Drugs. Therefore the provisions of the rule if properly examined are eminently just and proper. The provision appear to have been so devised as not to work hardship or injustice to persons in service. ( 9 ) IT is contended that there is legal malice in issuing advertisement dated 28/02/1989 by which applications for the post of Joint Commissioner have been invited. The allegations of mala fides are too vague and general and cannot be given much credence. There are no particulars with regard to mala fides of any particular officer. Allegations of mala fides are easy to be made and extremely difficult to be proved. Vague and general allegations as made in the petition are not worthy of credence and do not require to be considered further. There are no particulars with regard to mala fides of any particular officer. Allegations of mala fides are easy to be made and extremely difficult to be proved. Vague and general allegations as made in the petition are not worthy of credence and do not require to be considered further. ( 10 ) THERE is no substance in the petition. No other contention is raised. Hence the petition is rejected. Ad interim relief granted earlier stands vacated. ( 11 ) AT this stage the learned Counsel for the petitioner requests that the aforesaid order vacating ad interim relief be suspended for some time so as to enable the petitioner to approach the superior forum as it may be available to them. The request is granted. The aforesaid order vacating the ad interim relief shall remain in abeyance upto 8/12/1989 .