JUDGMENT 1. - This Special Appeal has been filed against the order dated September 14, 1990 passed in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2553/90 by the learned Single Judge, by which order dated August 16, 1990 (Annexure-2) issued by Department of Personnel, was quashed and declared to be illegal. 2. It is submitted by Shri M.I.Khan, learned Additional Advocate General that in the year 1988, 75 posts of Sub-Inspector of Police were advertised by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for sake of brevity 'R.P.S.C.'), in which 17 and 16 posts were shown to be reserved for Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes respectively. The R.P.S.C. issued an advertisement Annexure-1 for Competitive Test, 1988, in which also the above details were mentioned. Applications were to be submitted upto August 13, 1988 and examination for which was scheduled to be held in the month of September, 1988 was held on March 30, 1989. The R.P.S.C. has against 33 posts reserved for S.C. & S.T., selected only 15 candidates from amongst the S.C./S.T. candidates. 42 candidates were selected from general category to fill-up the 42 posts, advertised for this category. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel that order dated August 16, 1989 (Anx.2) has been issued by the Government under provisions of Rule 7 (1) of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (for sake of brevity 'the Rules, 1989') as the State Government is authorised to issue order regarding reservation for vacancies for S.C. & S.T. from time to time, as may be deemed to be appropriate. It is further submitted that Sub-Rule(4) of Rule 7 is subject to sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Rules, 1989 and sub-rule (4) is only procedural in nature. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant No.1 was not authorised to issue such order which infact has been issued under provisions of sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Rules, 1989. It is further contended that order Annexure-2, therefore, cannot be termed to be in the nature of administrative instructions and cannot be said to be violative of sub-rule (4) of Rule 7 of the Rules, 1989. It is further contended that order Annexure-2, therefore, cannot be termed to be in the nature of administrative instructions and cannot be said to be violative of sub-rule (4) of Rule 7 of the Rules, 1989. It is also contended that without prejudice to the contentions raised above, sub-rule (4) of Rule 7 clearly states that, if the suitable and eligible candidates amongst S.C./S.T. are not available in a particular year, such vacancies shall be reserved in the subsequent year and the vacancies were reserved for S.C./S.T. shall be filled-in in accordance with the normal procedure. It is, therefore, pointed out that the appellants can make second attempt to recruit the candidates from S.C. and S.T. to fill-up the posts in the same year and the additional vacancies can be reserved in subsequent years, after complete year has passed. It is submitted that, if the interpretation of learned Single Judge is taken to be correct, then it will tantamount to reservation of posts for SC and ST and will also be violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. 4. We have heard both the parties and have also perused the documents on record. 5. We need not extract the Rule 7 of the Rules, 1989 since the same has been already extracted in the order of the learned Single Judge. A bare reading of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Rules, makes it evident that reservation of the vacancies for SC/ST shall be "in accordance with the orders of the Government for such reservation in force at the time of recruitment, which may be either by recruitment or by promotion." This means that whenever a recruitment for filling-up any posts by way of direct recruitment or by promotion, is held the respondent State is authorised to issue specific order as to how many posts from the total number of posts, shall be reserved for SC and ST in that particular recruitment. To this extent, the State had already decided and in the advertisement (Anx.1) itself it was mentioned that 17 & 16 posts were reserved for SC and ST candidates. 6. Sub-rule (4) lays down in that, appointments shall be made strictly in accordance with the rosters prescribed separately for direct recruitment or by promotion. To this extent, the State had already decided and in the advertisement (Anx.1) itself it was mentioned that 17 & 16 posts were reserved for SC and ST candidates. 6. Sub-rule (4) lays down in that, appointments shall be made strictly in accordance with the rosters prescribed separately for direct recruitment or by promotion. It further prescribes that in the event of non-availability of eligible and suitable candidates amongst the SC/ST, as the case may be, in a particular year, the vacancies so reserved for them, shall be filled in accordance with the normal procedure and an equivalent number of additional vacancies shall be reserved in the subsequent year. It further lays down that such of the vacancies which remain so unfilled shall be carried forwarded to the subsequent three recruitment years in total and thereafter such reservation would lapse. Thus, it can be said that sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (4) of Rule 7 are totally independent and operate in different fields. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 7 lays down, as to how the vacancies have to be filled and deals with several situations that may arise during the process of filling the vacancies/posts/promotions, therefore, it can by no stretch of imagination be said that sub-rule (4) is subject to sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Rules, 1989. Next contention raised by the learned counsel is that second attempt shall be made for recruiting suitable candidates belonging to SC and ST in the same year, if they were not available when the recruitment was held for the first time in the same year. We have carefully gone through Rule 7 of the Rules, 1989 and it is evident that it does not prohibit the State from holding recruitment for the second attempt in the same year, if the candidates of SC and ST are not available during the first recruitment. Therefore, it can be said that even when issuing order-Annexure-2, the State was well within its rights to make a second attempt of recruitment for SC/ST candidates. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 7 lays down only that, if suitable and eligible candidates are not available amongst SC and ST in a particular year, the vacancies so reserved for them, shall be filled-in in accordance with the normal procedure and an equivalent number of additional vacancies shall be reserved in the subsequent year. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 7 lays down only that, if suitable and eligible candidates are not available amongst SC and ST in a particular year, the vacancies so reserved for them, shall be filled-in in accordance with the normal procedure and an equivalent number of additional vacancies shall be reserved in the subsequent year. Thus, it clearly speaks the non-availability of suitable and eligible candidates amongst the SC and ST in a particular year. It is only prevailed that the question of filling the vacancies, so reserved for SC and ST candidates in accordance with normal procedure shall arise. We also do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel that, if Annexure-2 is quashed, it will tantamount to de-reservation of the posts for SC and ST and will be violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. Quashing of Annexure-2 can in no way amount to de-reservation of the vacancies/posts as the same number of unfilled posts shall be carried forward to the subsequent year as laid down in sub-rule (4) of Rule 7 of the Rules, 1989 itself. Annexure-2 is clearly against the provisions of sub-rule (4) of Rule 7, as it lays down that, if the required number of SC/ST candidates are not available even after second attempt of recruitment, then such available vacancies shall remain unfilled until the next year and these vacancies shall be treated as "backlog" vacancies. In the second para of this Annexure, it has been clearly stated that "it has now been decided that where sufficient candidates belonging to SC/ST are not available to fill-up the vacancies reserved for them in direct recruitment, the vacancies shall not be filled by candidates not belonging to these communities. In other words, there will be a ban on dereservation with immediate effect ". Therefore, it is amply clear that annexure-2 has been issued only with the object to show that what is laid down by sub-rule (4) of Rule 7. In State of Maharashtra v. Jagannath Achyut Karandikar, 1989 (1) SCC (Suppl.) 393 it was held by the Apex Court that the Government could not restrict the operation of the statutory rules by issuing the executive instructions. It was further observed that executive instructions may supplement, but not supplant the statutory rules. In C.L.Verma v. State of Madhya Pradesh & anr. It was further observed that executive instructions may supplement, but not supplant the statutory rules. In C.L.Verma v. State of Madhya Pradesh & anr. 1989 (2) SCC (Suppl.) 437 it was held by the Apex Court that an administrative instruction cannot compete with a statutory rule and if there be contrary provisions in the rule the administrative instructions must give way and the rule shall prevail. 7. Apart from this, there is another aspect of the matter also. In the case under consideration an advertisement was issued (Annex.l) wherein it was clearly mentioned that, if suitable and eligible candidates belonging to SC/ST were not available, such vacancies can be filled-up from candidates belonging to general category. Therefore, on this ground also, the respondents cannot be denied the right to appoint, if they come within the range of merit, as they have acquired vested right for being considered for selection as per the conditions advertised in Annexure-1. In N.T. Bevin Katti, etc. vs. Karnataka Public Service Commission & ors AIR 1990 SC 1233 , it was observed by the Apex Court that "there is also another aspect of the question. Whether advertisement is issued inviting applications for direct recruitment to a category of posts, and the advertisement, expressly states that selection shall be made in accordance with the existing Rules or Government orders, and if it further indicates the extent of reservations in favour of various categories the selection of candidates in such a case must be made in accordance with the then existing Rules and Government Orders. Candidates who apply, and undergo written or viva voice test acquire vested right for being considered for selection in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the advertisement, unless the advertisement itself indicates a contrary intention." 8. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge and the Special Appeal is, therefore; dismissed. It is rather strange and unfortunate that State Government issued the order Annexure-2 giving different directions for filling up the vacancies reserved for SC/ST and also mentioned in Annexure-2 that suitable amendment shall be made in the Rules, but the same has not yet been done; even though one year has already passed away. It is rather strange and unfortunate that State Government issued the order Annexure-2 giving different directions for filling up the vacancies reserved for SC/ST and also mentioned in Annexure-2 that suitable amendment shall be made in the Rules, but the same has not yet been done; even though one year has already passed away. It is no use doing lip service with SC/ST persons and it is only necessary that when an order is passed, it should be passed in such manner that it can be implemented, as there is rule of law in our country. The respondents are, therefore, entitled to be considered and appointed in terms of Rule 7 of the Rules, 1989 in accordance with their merit position against the vacancies which are reserved for SC/ST candidates for which the eligible and suitable candidates have not become available after the recruitment held by R.P.S.C. 9. It was submitted by Shri M.I.Khan, learned Additional Advocate General that some time may be given to implement the order of the learned Single-Judge, since a contempt petition has also been filed and period of two months granted by the learned Single Judge has already expired. In the facts and circumstances 4 weeks time is allowed for implementing the order, as above. 10. The Special Appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.Appeal dismissed. *******