JUDGMENT : N.H. Bhatt, J. This is a petition by one Indian Police Service Officer challenging the Central Government's order Annexure-C dated 9th April, 1974, said to have been passed under clause (bb) of rule 12 of the Indian Police Service (Probation) Rules, 1954 terminating his services with effect from the date on which that order was served on him. The grave-men of the petitioner's contention in his petition is that he was a confirmed officer who could not be dealt with under the probation rules relied upon by the Central Government for putting an end to his service. 2. A few facts requires to be stated: The petitioner had contested the combined competitive examination for Indian Police Service held in 1968. The appointment order was made on June 16, 1969. The petitioner had accepted the order and had joined the cadre on July 4, 1969 and had started undergoing two counts of training one at the National Academy of Administration, Mussoorie and the further one at the National Police Academy, Mount Abu. Rule 5 of the Indian Police Service (Probation) Rules, 1954 commanded compliance with this and the petitioner had successfully completed both the courses. He had thereafter appeared at the final examination held under Rule 7 and had cleared the same at the second attempt the petitioner was in the meantime allotted to the Gujarat State Cadre by the Central Government's order dated January 1, 1970 and he was posted as an Assistant Superintendent of Police in Ahmedabad City on July 7, 1970. Since then and till his services came to be put an end to some where in the end of April 1974 by the impugned order Annexure C, he continued to work as such. There is a good deal of factual controversy put on the record of this case because of the petitioner's alternative allegation of his being dismissed under the guise of his discharge simpliciter. However, all this material now becomes out of place considerably because on the first ground of the petitioner being a confirmed employee the order Annexure C is liable to be set aside. Rule 12 of the Indian Police Service (Probation) Rules, 1954 under which the impugned order Annexure-C came to be passed reads as follows : "12. However, all this material now becomes out of place considerably because on the first ground of the petitioner being a confirmed employee the order Annexure C is liable to be set aside. Rule 12 of the Indian Police Service (Probation) Rules, 1954 under which the impugned order Annexure-C came to be passed reads as follows : "12. Discharge of a Probationer - A Probationer shall be liable to be discharged from the service, (or as the case may be, reverted to his post in the State Service from which he was recruited) - (a) if he fails to pass the final examination in the circumstances mentioned in rule 9 ; or (b) if the Central Government is satisfied that the probationer was ineligible for recruitment to the service or is unsuitable for being a member of the service ; or (bb) if he is found lacking in qualities of mind and character needed for the service or in constructive outlook and human sympathy needed in the public service generally ; or (c) if he fails to comply with any of the provisions of these rules." I also quote below rule 3 of the said rules which deals with the period of probation. "3. Period of probation - (l)Every person recruited to the service in accordance with the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Competitive Examination) Regulations, 1955, and the Indian Police Service (Emergency Commissioned and Short Service Commissioned Officers) (Appointment by Competitive Examination) Regulations, 1966, shall be appointed to the Service on probation for a period of two years. (2) Every person recruited to the Service in accordance with - (i) the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 or (ii) regulation 3 of the Indian Police Service (Special Recruitment Regulations), 1957, shall be appointed to the service on probation for a period of one year : Provided that in the case of any person recruited to the Service in accordance with the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1955, any period for which he has been appointed to a cadre post may, having regard to his performance in such post, be counted towards the period of probation : Provided further that the Central Government may in exceptional circumstances of any case, after consulting the Commission reduce the period of probation. (3) The Central Government may, if it so thinks fit in any case or class of cases, extend the period of probation. (4) In this rule, 'Cadre post' has the same meaning as in clause (b) of rule 2 of the Indian Police Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954" 3. The petitioner's contention was that as per rule 3 he was a probation (sic probationer ?) for the period of two years and the powers of the Government to extend the period of probation were in fact never exercised with the result that the confirmation followed automatically. This argument is also not required to be examined in this case because the issue can be decided on the basis of the Central Government's general instructions issued on 16th March, 1973 and styled as 'Indian Police Service (Probation) Rules, 1954, General Instructions regarding probation'. The relevant portion from the said Government Circular letter is quoted below : "It is not desirable that a member of the Service should be kept on probation for years as happens occasionally at present. Save for exceptional cases the period of probation should not, therefore, be extended for more than one year and no member of the Service should, by convention, be kept on probation for more than double the normal period i.e. 4 years. (Emphasis supplied by me). (iii) The decision whether a member of the service should be confirmed or the period of his probation should be extended, should be taken soon after the expiry of the initial probationary period i.e. ordinarily within 6 to 8 weeks thereafter, and communicated to him together with the reasons in case of extensions. With a view to enabling the Central Government to take a prompt decision in each case, the assessment report, in the prescribed form, should be sent to this Ministry immediately after the training is over. (iv) The Probationer, who is not making satisfactory progress or who shows to be inadequate for the service in any way, should be informed of his short-comings well before the expiry of the original probationary period so that he can make special efforts, as self-improvement. (iv) The Probationer, who is not making satisfactory progress or who shows to be inadequate for the service in any way, should be informed of his short-comings well before the expiry of the original probationary period so that he can make special efforts, as self-improvement. This can be done by giving a written warning to the effect that his general performance has not been such as to justify his confirmation in the Service and that, unless he shows substantial improvement within the specified period, the question of discharging him from the service would have to be considered. Even though this is not required by the Rules, discharge from the service being a severe, final and irrevocable step, the probationer should be given such an opportunity before taking the drastic step of discharge." It is to be noted as the acknowledgement of fairness on the part of Respondent No 1 the Union of India that this just noted circular letter dated 16ta March. 1973 was produced on their behalf and it is to be found at page 144 of the file. 4. If we take rule 3 quoted above, dealing with period of probation, and the above quoted Government Circular letter, it is crystal clear that the Central Government has laid down as a matter of policy that the period of probation should not as a matter of general convention, be for more than double the normal period i.e. 4 years in all. As far as the factual aspect is concerned, the petitioner had completed 4 years' period on July 4. 1973 and the impugned order Annexure C came to be passed on 18-4-1974 i.e. after four years and about nine months of the initial appointment. As I am going to hold below that the effect of the Circular dated 16th March, 1973 is to lay down as a matter of the Union Government's General policy to limit the period of probation to 4 years, it is evident that the impugned order Annexure C purporting to be passed under Rule 12 of the Indian Police Service (Probation) Rules. 1954 would be an act without any authority of law and hence liable to be set at naught. 5. 1954 would be an act without any authority of law and hence liable to be set at naught. 5. On behalf of the respondents, however, it was urged with vehemence that the statutory rule 3 quoted above gave a blanket and limitless power to the Government to extend the period of probation and the executive Instructions issued by the Central Government under the Circular dated 16th March. 1973 could not override the statutory rule. As a matter of principle, it is to be conceded that the executive instructions that are in derogation of statutory rules must give way. The main question, however, is : Do executive instructions contained in that letter in any way tun counter to the statutory rule No. 3 quoted above ? Even a casual glance at the text of the said rule is sufficient to convince us that all that, that rule 3 does is to clothe the Central Government with a power to extend the period of probation in its discretion the rule is silent as to the period of extension. Lest this enabling provision which is ambiguous or unclear should be abused, the Central Government stepped in with its general powers of issuing administrative instructions. It is indisputable that in the so here where there are no statutory rules the Government can issue administrative instructions which would have the force of a binding rule and such instructions being common in their application to one and all would govern the administrative relations. This sort of power of the Government to issue administrative instructions has been long backrecognised the Supreme Court itself in Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and others. AIR 1967 Supreme Court 1910. 6. It was however urged on behalf of the respondents that the above quoted Government circular dated 16th March, 1973 did not lay down as a matter of rule that probation period could be extended beyond the totality of 4 years. It was urged that the phrase 'save for exceptional cases' which is on adverbial phrase will govern the two clauses namely, (1) the period of probation should not be extended for more than one year, (2) no member of the service should by convention be kept on probation for more than double the normal period. It was urged that the phrase 'save for exceptional cases' which is on adverbial phrase will govern the two clauses namely, (1) the period of probation should not be extended for more than one year, (2) no member of the service should by convention be kept on probation for more than double the normal period. In other words it was urged that we should read that latter clause as follows : "Save for exceptional cases no member of the service should by convention be kept on probation for more than double the normal period i.e. 4 years." Firstly, by adopting normal rules of construction and interpretation and taking the text as it is I do not think that the adverbial phrase "Save for exceptional case" would go with the second clause. Secondly, it is evident from the entire tenor of the Government's letter and particularly the proceeding sentence about undesirability to keep a man hanging on probation for years together that the Government wanted to lay down a definite policy in order to see that such undesirable practices came to a halt. The anxiety of the Government as it is evident from the Circular is to see that the suitability or otherwise of an employee and particularly of a Police Officer could well be judged within a period of two years After having formulated this opinion the Central Government contemplated the possibility of the existence of some exceptional cases and that is why it negatively ordained that except in grave cases the period of probation should not be extended for more than one year. Making further allowance for some human lapses and usual delays in reaching decisions, the Government then laid down in clear and negative prohibitory language that no member of the service should as a matter of convention (in the absence of a statutory rule) be kept on probation for more than four years It is, therefore, evident that there is perceptible Governmental anxiety to lay down a norm or standard, a standard, or a ceiling regarding the totality of period during which an I.P.S. Police officer would remain hanging on probation. 7. The third reason is also there to show that what is urged on behalf of the Respondents is unsustainable. It is only in the exceptional cases and not in the normal cases that the period of probation is to be extended beyond two years. 7. The third reason is also there to show that what is urged on behalf of the Respondents is unsustainable. It is only in the exceptional cases and not in the normal cases that the period of probation is to be extended beyond two years. There is nothing on record to show that there was anything present by way of an exception in the petitioner's case. Had it been there, further guidelines laid down in the said letter and quoted above would have been followed. 8. Lastly, it was contended on behalf of the respondents that the use of the auxiliary verb 'should' and not the use of the imperative verb 'shall' should make us hold that the Government did not intend to lay down any rule or norm or convention. When the language is crystal clear and the context in which the said text is set, is examined in its entirety it is difficult to subscribe to the argument advanced on behalf of the respondents. 9. It is, therefore, very clear that by virtue of the Government's policy decision laid down in the Government circular dated 16th March 1973, the petitioner was to be deemed to be confirmed. If any authority for a situation like this is to be had we can advert to the case of the State of Punjab v. Dharam Singh, A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 1210 The ratio in that decision almost squarely applies. In that case the statutory rule itself provided that the period of probation including the extension could not exceed three years, whereas in our case the very effect is achieved by the Government by issuing the circular dated 16th March 1973 laying down similar and identical policy in respect of the total period of probation. In that case the provision for the total period of probation not exceeding three years was interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean automatic confirmation on the expiry of the total period of probation. The same conclusion is to be deduced as a matter of course in the set of circumstances in the case on hand. 10. The result is that the petition Is allowed. The order at Annexure-C terminating employment of the petitioner on the wrong basis of his being on probation is set aside and the petitioner is deemed to be continuing in service. Rule is accordingly made absolute with costs. Petition allowed.