JUDGMENT 1. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that the respondents may be directed to appoint him as LDC in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant Dying While in Service Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 1975 rules'). He has also prayed that the Circular dated 31.1.91 issued by the Government may declared as unconstitutional and also ultra vires to the provisions of 1975 rules, and the order dated 10.9.91 passed by the Collector, Sawai Madhopui may be declared as illegal and be quashed. 2. Brief facts of the case ale that the petitioner's father late Shri Ram Prasad Pareek was employed as UDC in the Collectorate of Sawaimadhopur at the time of his death in the year 1965. In the year 1975 the rules were enacted for giving appointment to the dependents of the Government servants dying while in service. The date of eligibility was fixed as 2.9.72. Only dependents of those Government servants dying on or after 2.9.72 were made eligible for grant of the benefit of 1975 rules. Rule 2(e) of 1975 rules was partly struck down by the High Court in Shashi Kant v. State of Rajasthan 1989(1) RLR 586 and thereafter, the dependents of all Government Servants who had died even earlier than 2.9.72 became entitled to be considered for appointment. 3. The petitioner made application for appointment as LDC before the Collector, Sawaimadhopur. The application of the petitioner has been rejected by the Collector vide letter dated 10.9.91 (Exhibit-2) on the ground that his brother Shri Govind Saran Pareek had already been appointed in the Government Secretariat as LDC on 7.12.77 and as per the Government Circular dated 31.1.91, the petitioner was not entitled to make a claim for appointment as LDC under 1975 rules'. The petitioner served a notice of demand for justice on 27.2.91 and when he did not get relief from the administration, he has filed this writ petition. 4. The petitioner has stated that Shri Govind Sharan Pareek had been appointed in Government Secretariat as LDC on the basis of open competition held by the Rajasthan Public; Service Commission and he had not been appointed as a dependent of deceased Government servant. Copy of the order of appointment dated 7.12.77 issued in favour of Shri Govind Sharan Pareek has been placed on record as Exhibit-3. Copy of the order of appointment dated 7.12.77 issued in favour of Shri Govind Sharan Pareek has been placed on record as Exhibit-3. Affidavit of the petitioner's mother has been filed as Exhibit-4. Copy of the circular dated 31.1.91 issued by the Government and department of personnel has also been filed as Exhibit-1. 5. After admission of the writ petition notice was given to the respondents. Arguments have been heard. 6. The only point which has been urged by Shri S.K. Keshote learned counsel for the petitioner is that the circular dated 31.1.91 cannot be used to deny appointment to the petitioner under 1975 rules. His submission is that this circular is clearly against the provisions of 1975 rules. Shri Keshote argued that as per the scheme of rules 4 and 5 of 1975 rules, one member of the family of a deceased Government servant, who is not already in employment, is entitled to be appointed on a suitable post. The circular dated 31.1.91 clearly denies employment to dependents of a deceased Government servant on the ground that anyone member of the family may have been appointed under the Government or in the Public Undertakings/Corporation/Organisations owned or controlled by the Government. Thus there is a direct conflict between the rules and the circular. Provisions of the rules must be prevailed in this situation. 7. A similar question has been considered by me in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4596/91 Sushri Durgesh Sharma v. State of Rajasthan decided on 10.10.91 and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6796/91 Narendra Kumar v. State of Rajasthan and others decided on 6.12.91. 1 have examined the validity of the circular dated 31.1.91 in those two cases. In the later case I have observed, "Circular issued by the Government on 31.1.91 contains a policy decision that the dependents of those Government servants who have died on or before 2.9.72 shall also be entitled to consideration for employment under the Rules of 1975 and the competent authorities must not reject the application of the dependents of the deceased Government servants on the ground that the Government servant employees or other persons cannot be taken away. Be that as it may, as on date the circular dated 31.1.91 clearly runs contrary to the provisions contained in Rule 5 of 1975 Rules. Be that as it may, as on date the circular dated 31.1.91 clearly runs contrary to the provisions contained in Rule 5 of 1975 Rules. In S.L. Sachdev and another v. Union of India and others (1980) 4 SCC 562 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that the Government cannot issue administrative instructions which are contrary to the provisions of the statutory rules and if any such administrative instruction is issued, such instruction is liable to be ignored. Their lordships observed:- "It may be recalled that the Recruitment Rules only provide for a classification on the basis of the length of service in the new Organisation. , Any directive which goes beyond it and superimposes a new criterion on the Rules will be bad as lacking in jurisdiction. No one can issue a direction 1 which, in substance and effect, amounts to an amendment of the Rules made by the President under Article 309. That it elementary, we are unable to accept the learned Attorney General's submission that the directive of the Director General is aimed at further and better implementation of the Recruitment Rules. Clearly, it introduces an amendment to the Rules by prescribing one more test for determining whether UDCs drawn from the Audit Offices are "eligible for promotion to the Selection Grade/Head Clerks Cadre." ' The same principle has been enunciated by this Court in Jagjeevan Chand v. Rajasthan High Court 1982 RLR 821 , which has been affirmed by Division Bench in Ghanshyam Das V.R. v. Rajasthan High Court 1988(2) RLR 899 . In view of the above discussion it must be held that the circular dated 31.1.91 contains a provision which is contrary to, the statutory rule 5 of 1975 Rules and the said circular cannot be used for denying appointment to the dependent of a deceased Government servant on the ground that any other member of the family has got employment or has obtained the Government service independently by direct recruitment or by any other mode prescribed by law or the administrative instructions. To the extent of inconsistency, the circular dated 31.1.91 deserves to be ignored." 8. The case of the petitioner is fully covered by the decision in Narendra Kumar Sharma's case. 9. To the extent of inconsistency, the circular dated 31.1.91 deserves to be ignored." 8. The case of the petitioner is fully covered by the decision in Narendra Kumar Sharma's case. 9. In view of the above the denial of appointment to the petitioner on the ground that his brother Shri Govind Sharan Pareek had been appointed in Government service in the year 1977 cannot be held to be legally justified. Order passed by the Collector on 10.9.91 is therefore, liable to be declared as illegal. 10. The writ petition is allowed. It is declared that the circular dated 31.1.91 is inconsistent with the provisions of 1975 rules and cannot therefore, be enforced. The communication of the Collector dated 10.9.91 is declared as illegal and quashed. Respondents are directed to issue order of appointment to the petitioner on a suitable post in accordance with 1975 rules within two months of the date of presentation of copy of this order. Parties are left to bear their own costs.Writ Petition Allowed. *******