JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner's in the aforesaid cases have challenged the condition in the recruitment notice advertised by the District Establishment Committees of various Districts for recruitment to the posts of G. III Teachers in the Primary Schools under various Panchayat Samitis in various Districts reserving certain posts for categories like handicapped persons and female candidates on the ground that no such reservation for such categories is provided by the Schedule/Rules governing the recruitment. 2. It is also contended that the advertisements are invalid tot the reason that the total reservation for all the categories taken together exceeds 509 of the total posts. 3. On behalf of the respondents it is stated that actually, providing some posts for female candidates is not a reservation as such but is requirement of circumstances. According to the respondents under the Education Policy framed by the Central Government one female teacher has to be posted in every primary school and the grant in aid is granted by the Central Government on that basis. It is therefore, contended that because of the condition of having at least one female teacher in every primary school some posts have to be filled in by the female candidates alone. 4. Recruitment is to the posts of teachers in Primary Schools in the Panchayat Samitis is governed by the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishads Rules, 1959 framed under the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act (for short `the Act' hereinafter). 5. Section 86 of the Act provides for constitution of Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad Service and divided the service into different categories, one of which is `primary school teacher'. 6. Sub-section (6) of Sec. 86 of the Act provides that appointment for direct recruitment shall be made by a Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad as the case may be in accordance with the rules made in this behalf by the State Government from out of the persons selected for the posts in a grade or category in the district by the District Establishment Committee constituted under Sec. 88 of the Act. 7. The question of reservation would therefore, be governed by the said rules. 8. R. 7 of the Rules provides for reservation of vacancies for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. 9. 7. The question of reservation would therefore, be governed by the said rules. 8. R. 7 of the Rules provides for reservation of vacancies for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. 9. The contention of the petitioners therefore, in these various petitions is that under the Act and the Rules governing the recruitment of primary teachers in the primary schools run by Panchayat Samitis, there can be no reservation for female and handicapped persons or any other class for that matter except the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. 10. The contention of the respondents is that female candidates are a category in themselves and no reservation is being made for them. They have contended in the return that no reservation has been made for women candidates but in a Circular dated May 5, 1993 issued by the Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department of State of Rajasthan, a direction has been issued to recruit 50% female teachers as 50% of the teachers in the primary schools have to be lady teachers under the National Education Policy of the Central Government. In order to show that it is not a reservation but recruitment in it separate category reference was made to the various provisions of the Rules which give concession in the matter of age, qualification etc. to female candidates. It was contended that in Rule 10(vi) of the Rules, a higher upper age limit has been fixed for female candidates. It was also pointed out that in the Schedule of the academic-qualification referred to in R. 11, relaxation is given in favour of female teachers. It was therefore, contended that female candidates constitute it different category and therefore recruiting 50% female candidates could not amount to reservation in their favour. 11. In support of the contention a Division Bench decision of this Court in Purshottam Dass v. State of Rajasthan, (1991) 2 Rajasthan LR 426 was cited. 12. It was also contended that it was not necessary that the Rules should provide for reservation and even by an executive order the seats could be reserved for it Class of candidates. Decision of the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477 : 1993 Lab IC 129 was cited in support of this contention. 13. Decision of the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477 : 1993 Lab IC 129 was cited in support of this contention. 13. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Shantilal Jain, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 777 , it was contended that it was possible to bifurcate a cadre and it was not necessary that all the teachers should be kept in the same category. 14. In reply to this contention it was contended on behalf of the petitioners that Schedule of Rules cannot be superseded by an executive instruction and the decision of the Supreme Court in Senior Supdt. of Post Office v. Izhar Hussain, (1989) 3 SCR 796 : AIR 1989 SC 2262 . , Paluru Ramkrishnaiah v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 166 and State of Maharashtra v. Jagannath Achyut Karandikar, (1989) 1 SCR 947 : 1989 Lab IC 1237 were cited. 15. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record. I have reached the conclusion that these petitions deserve to be allowed. 16. The contention that the provision for filling in 50% posts from amongst female candidates does not amount to reservation has to be rejected. There is no force in the contention that female teachers are different category. Section 86 of the Act as well as R. 4 of the Rules clearly categorise primary school teachers as one and the only category of the teachers. If the intention was to have two categories of teachers one of male teachers and one of the female teachers that would have been provided under S. 86 and Rule 4. Whether looking to the nature of work the Legislature intended-that only female candidates be recruited, the category would have been specifically constituted as in the case of `Gram Sevikas'. There is no doubt that as held in State of Rajasthan's case, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 777 a new cadre can be created by bifurcating and unification of cadre but it will be clear from that decision. That it was done by Rules. Instead of it joint and combined cadre, two separate cadres of Compounders and Nurses were created. As the Rules have not been amended in these cases, the aforesaid decision is of no help to the respondents. 17. That it was done by Rules. Instead of it joint and combined cadre, two separate cadres of Compounders and Nurses were created. As the Rules have not been amended in these cases, the aforesaid decision is of no help to the respondents. 17. It is clear from the decisions of the Supreme Court in Senior Supdt. of Post Office, AIR 1989 SC 2262 Paluru Ramkrishnaiah, AIR 1990 SC 166 and State of Maharashtra, 1989 Lab IC 1237 (SC) that no executive instructions could over-ride Rules having statutory force. As there is no amendment made to the Rules specifying the different cadre for female teachers, it cannot be said that female teachers are a different category and recruitment could be independently made to that category. 18. The respondent's alternative argument is that if it is taken to be a reservation even then it was necessitated because of the policy of the Government to employ one female teacher in every primary school. I fail to understand as to how a policy of the Government can be distinguished from and put on a higher pedestal than the executive decision of the State Government. If the Rules could not be amended by executive instructions, 'they cannot certainly be amended by policy decisions. Whatever be the compulsion of the State Government in falling in line with the policy framed by the Central Government for the purpose of receiving grant in aid for opening schools in the State, if the State Government desires to implement the policy, it has to make necessary amendment in the Rules providing for either reservation in favour of the female candidates or for a separate category of female teachers. The Rules cannot be given a go by and they cannot even be supplemented on the essential points by adding provisions for reservation or categorisation. 19. The petitions before deserve to be allowed and they are hereby allowed. 20. The reservation in favour of all other categories except the categories provided by the Rules are quashed. The respondents shall continue the process of the selection but shall not select candidates on the ground of reservation against the Rules given in the advertisement. 21. As these petitions are being decided on the point of the advertisement being in violation of Rules, the question of reservation exceeding 50% is not necessary to be decided in these cases.Petitions allowed. *******