Summary
Where recruitment rules specified qualifications but no selection method, the executive could prescribe written and physical-endurance tests consistently with those rules. Candidates who participated without objection could not challenge the procedure after failing the endurance test. Their appeals were dismissed.
Issues
- Whether executive instructions could prescribe the selection method when recruitment rules were silent.
- Whether unsuccessful participating candidates could later challenge that procedure.
Held
- Article 162 permitted executive instructions to fill the procedural gap so long as they did not conflict with the governing rules. Neither the written examination nor endurance test was prescribed by those rules, which dealt only with essential qualifications. (¶ 2–6)
- The candidates accepted both stages without objection, challenging only after failing the endurance test. Such participation precluded their subsequent procedural challenge on these facts. (¶¶ 5, 7)
Result
Appeals dismissed; selection procedure prescribed by the executive instructions upheld.