JUDGMENT B.N. Sapru, J. - Smt. Malti Misra was appointed as an Assistant Inspectress of Girls Schools on 21.1.1963 and was confirmed on 1.4.1969 on that post. The respondent No. 3 was appointed as Assistant Inspectress of Girls Schools on 28.9.1964 and confirmed as such on 1.4.1969, while the respondent No. 4, Smt. Kusumlata Gupta was appointed as Assistant Inspectress of Girls Schools on 17.8.1968 and was confirmed on 1.4.1975. The respondents Nos. 3 and 4 admittedly belong to backward class. 2. The post of Assistant Inspectress of Girls Schools is a post covered by the Subordinate Educational (Gazetted - Inspection Branch) Service Rules, 1964, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). These Rules have been made by the Governor under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and they regulate the recruitment to the post and conditions of services of the persons appointed to the Subordinate Educational (Gazetted Inspection Branch). Rule 7 of the Rules provides for representation of Schedule Castes. It runs as follows:- "7. Representation of Schedule Castes.- Reservation for Schedule Castes in direct recruitment shall be in accordance with the orders for reservation in force at the time of recruitment. (A copy of the orders in force at the time of promulgation of these rules will be found in Appendix 'B' to these rules.)" 3. Thereafter Part VI of the Rules deals with the procedure for recruitment by promotion. Rule 18 (1) of the Rules provides that - "For purposes of recruitment by promotion under rule 5 to the posts of Deputy Inspector and Deputy Inspectress, a selection shall be made on the basis of seniority subject to rejection of the unfit from amongst confirmed Sub-Deputy Inspectors and Assistant Inspectress who have completed at least ten year's service in their respective posts". 4. The case of the petitioner is that she had become eligible for promotion but she was not considered because in view of certain executive instructions issued by the Government dealing with the reservation for appointment to be made by promotion, the respondents No. 3 and 4 who were juniors, were promoted. 5. In the counter-affidavit filed by Sri Kailash Nath Jaiswal on behalf of the Director of Education, it has been stated that the petitioner was not considered for promotion as the petitioner was junior to. Smt. Nandini Devi and Smt. Prabha Bhatnagar. 5. In the counter-affidavit filed by Sri Kailash Nath Jaiswal on behalf of the Director of Education, it has been stated that the petitioner was not considered for promotion as the petitioner was junior to. Smt. Nandini Devi and Smt. Prabha Bhatnagar. It was further stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner's promotion case will be considered in the future vacancies according to the petitioner's seniority and suitability. The counter affidavit has gone to say that:- "The incumbent belonging to the backward classes Smt. Urmila Katiyar and Smt. Kusumlata Gupta have been promoted according to the reservation made for the promotion to the backward class by the Government Order dated 13.1.1978 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition). Thus it is wrong to say that the promotion case of the petitioner has been overlooked." 6. In paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit it is stated that - ".... the petitioner belongs to the General Caste and the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 belong to the Backward Caste and their promotion has been given on the basis of the reservation order dated 13.1.1978 made by the Government. As such the question of supersession of the petitioner does not arise. No one belonging to the General Caste who is junior to the petitioner has been promoted. As such it is not admitted that the petitioner was entitled to the promotion prior to respondents Nos. 3 and 4". 7. In paragraph 16 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that - ".... the promotion of Assistant Inspectress of Girls School belonging to the S.C./S.T. and Backward Class are being given according to the reservation order made by the Government from time to time. Before such persons are promoted their respective seniority inter se in their category and suitability has also been considered". 8. The short question, therefore, for consideration in this case is as to whether it was open to the Government to make reservation in case of promotion in favour of backward class. 9. Rule 7 of the Rules has been quoted above and they only speak of reservation for Scheduled Caste in case of direct recruitment in the Subordinate Educational (Gazetted Inspection Branch). Rule 7 of the Rules, as placed before the Court, does not speak even of a reservation in direct recruitment for backward class. 10. 9. Rule 7 of the Rules has been quoted above and they only speak of reservation for Scheduled Caste in case of direct recruitment in the Subordinate Educational (Gazetted Inspection Branch). Rule 7 of the Rules, as placed before the Court, does not speak even of a reservation in direct recruitment for backward class. 10. Annexure-7 to the writ petition is a copy of the Government order dealing with the reservation for backward class. The relevant part of the Government Order runs as follows :- " eq>s ;g dgus dk funsZ'k gqvk gS fd jk"V~h; ,dkdj.k foHkkx }kjk fuxZr 'kklukns'k la[;k 2003A pkfyl&jk0 ,dk0 02-11-1977 fnuakd 20-081977 ds vUrZxr fiNys oxZ ds O;fr;ksa ds fy, jkT;k/khu lsokvksa esa lh/kh HkrhZ }kjk Hkjs tkus okys inksa ,oa lsokvksa es vkj{k.k dk izkfo/kku fd;k x;k gS fdUrq inksUufr ls Hkjs tkus okys inksa lsokvksa esa mDr oxZ ds fy;s dksbZ vkj{k.k miyC/k ugha gSA 'kklu us bl ekeys ij xEHkhjrk iwoZd fopkj djus ds i'pkr ;g fu.kZ; fy;k gS fd fiNys oxZ ds fy;s vuqi;qDrksa dks NksM+rs gq;s T;s"Brk rFkk izs"Brk ds vk/kkj ij inksUufr nokjk Hkjs tkus okys inksa ij inksUufr lacaf/kr vU; lkekU; fu;eksa ds v/khu j[krs gq;s 15 izfr'kr vkj{k.k jgsxkA 2 & vr,ao eq>s vkils ;g vuqjks/k djuk gS fd d`i;k vius v/kfuLFk leLr fu;qfDr izkf/kdkfj;ksa dks mi;qDr vkns'kksa ls vfoyEc voxr djk nsa rFkk bu vkns'kksa dk lfdz; ,oa lqpk: :i ls ikyu fd;k tkuk lwfuf'pr djus ds fy;s Mugsa funsZ'k nsus dk d"V djsa rkfd vuqlwfpr tkfr;ksa o tutkfr;ksa ds yksxksa dh Hkkafr fiNM+s oxZ ds yksxksa ds fu;ekuqlkj jktdh; lsokvksa@inksa es bu vkns'kksa ds vk/kkj ij inksUufr nokj Hkjs tkus okys inksa ij vkj{k.k dh lqfo/kk dk ykHk fey ldsA ;g vkns'k rkRdkfyd izHkko ls ykxw gksxsA " 11. It is submitted here on behalf of the petitioner that the order of Government contained in Annexure-7 to the writ petition dated 13.1.1978 cannot stand in view of the fact that there are rules framed by the Governor governing promotion within the service. 12. It is submitted here on behalf of the petitioner that the order of Government contained in Annexure-7 to the writ petition dated 13.1.1978 cannot stand in view of the fact that there are rules framed by the Governor governing promotion within the service. 12. No executive instructions can be issued which are against the provisions of the Rules by the Governor under Article 309 of the Constitution of India Rule 18(1) has been quoted earlier and it merely says that for the purposes of recruitment by promotion under rule 5 to the post of Deputy Inspectress the selection shall be made on the basis of seniority subject to rejection of unfit from amongst confirmed Sub-Deputy Inspectors and Assistant Inspectress who have completed at least 10 year's service in their respective posts. It does not speak of any reservation of posts to be filled in by promotion in favour of backward class. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mohan Lal Mehrotra and others v. The Competroller and Auditor General of India, New Delhi and others 1979 A.W.C. 602. A similar controversy arose in that case. This Court after considering the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 1910 held that the statutory rules cannot be amended or superseded by administrative instructions except where, if the rules are silent on any particular point then gaps can be filled in and rules can be supplemented and instructions can be issued which are not inconsistent with rules already framed. 14. Here the Rules are perfectly clear. They speak of the manner in which promotions are to be made within the service. Thus, the Government Order (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) which contains an administrative direction by the Government that a certain number of posts to be filled in by promotion shall be reserved for backward class, is clearly without jurisdiction. 15. They speak of the manner in which promotions are to be made within the service. Thus, the Government Order (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) which contains an administrative direction by the Government that a certain number of posts to be filled in by promotion shall be reserved for backward class, is clearly without jurisdiction. 15. The learned Standing counsel tried to justify the Government Order by reference to Article 16 (4) of the Constitution of India which provides that nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State. This article enables the State to make provision for reservation of appointments to a post in favour of backward class. It, however, does not enable the Government to superseded by executive instructions the statutory rules made by the Governor under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. 16. In the result it must be held that the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 who are juniors to the petitioner, cannot be promoted without first considering the case of the petitioner and others who are seniors to the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 under the Rules. 17. This petition was filed in the year 1979 and is being decided in the month of October, 1984. Shri R.A. Sharma appearing on behalf of the petitioner states at the Bar that the petitioner has, since the filing of the writ petition, been promoted. It is not known as whether the respondents nos. 3 and 4 would have become due for promotion or not even if the Rules are correctly applied. 18. In the result the writ petition succeeds in part, the Government Order, No. 379 Aa/Chalisa Ra. Af - 6 (3)/77 dated 13.1.1978 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) is quashed. Since the petitioner has already been promoted to the post of Deputy Inspectress of Girls School, her seniority shall be determined treating her as having been deemed to have been appointed from the date on which she would have been appointed had the Government Order dated 13.1.1978 not been issued. The promotion of the respondents nos. 3 and 4 by Government Order dated 5.7.1975 in so far as it directs the promotion of the respondents Nos. 3 and 4, is quashed. The promotion of the respondents nos. 3 and 4 by Government Order dated 5.7.1975 in so far as it directs the promotion of the respondents Nos. 3 and 4, is quashed. However, if their turn for appointment by promotion has come, they shall continue to hold their office in accordance with law. It is made clear that none of other promotions made by Government Order dated 5.7.1975 is affected by this order. The petitioner is entitled to her costs as against the respondent no. 1.