S. P. SRIVASTAVA, J. The petitioner who claims to be entitled to the bene fits available to a person belonging to the category of Scheduled Castes, feels aggrieved by an order passed by the District Magistrate, whereunder rejecting the recommendation of the selection committee for the accelerated promotion of the petitioner on the post of registrar Kanoongo" granting him the bene fits of reservations, the select list was modified excluding his name. The petitioner has now approached this Court seeking redress praying for quashing of the said order. 2. I have heard Sri R. N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel and carefully perused the record. 3. It appears that the proceedings for filling up four vacancies in the posts of Registrar Kanoongo in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Awar Rajasva Lipik (Registrar Kanoongo Aur Sahayak Registrar Kanoongo) Sewa Niyamawali, 1958 were initiated wherein a selection committee constitut ed by the appointing authority met on 22-12-1994 for considering the suitabi lity of the eligible persons from the next below grade and submitting its recommendations. The feeding cadre for the post of Registrar Kanoongo as contemplated in the rules is the next below cadre of permanent Assistant Registrar Kanoongo and the criteria for promotion provided for in the rules is seniority subject to the rejection of unfit. The selection committee iound Shri Khedan Ram, Sri Nath Singh, Fasi Ahmad and Mahendra Singh Yaday to be eligible and suitable for the promotion. However, taking into consideration the government orders relating to reservation, the selection committee held that two posts were to be filled up by promoting the persons belonging to the reserved categories. Accordingly, since one person Shri Khedan Ram out of the above four persons who had been found fit for the promotion fell within the category of Scheduled Castes, for the other post the name of Shri Deo Chand Ram, the petitioner who was placed far below in the seniority list was considered and after finding him fit for promotion, his name was recommended ignoring the fourth person who was Shri Mahendra Singh Yadav substituting the name of Shri Deo Chand Ram in his place. 4. The aforesaid recommendations were submitted before the District Magistrate for approval. 4. The aforesaid recommendations were submitted before the District Magistrate for approval. The District Magistrate came to the conclu sion that none of the four posts could be deemed to have been reserved for being filled up by promoting any person belonging to the reserved category. The District Magistrate further noticed that the petitioner had already taken the benefits of the reservation twice, one at the time of direct recruitment and the other as promotee Assistant Registrar Kanoongo and consequently he was not entitled under the law to any further benefits of reservation in the matter of promotion. The District Magistrate came to the conclusion that since the petitioner was not entitled to the benefits of reservation in the promotional post and being much junior, he could not be deemed to be eligible for promotion and could not even be considered for the same. Consequently, since the selection committee had already approved the name of Mahendra Singh Yadav for promotion but had excluded him to accommodate the petitioner who was much junior, only on the ground that the petitioner was entitled to the benefits of reservation, the District Magistrate amended the select list restoring the name of Mahendra Singh Yadav deleting the name of the petitioner. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the petitioner who belonged to the category of Scheduled Caste was entitled to the benefits of reservation even in the matter relating to promotion and the mere fact that he had already availed of such benefits at the time of direct recruitment was of no consequence. It is urged that the petitioner could not be denied the right to get appointment on the promotional post specially when his case had been considered and approved by the selection committee extending the bene fits of reservation to him. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has further urged that under the provisions contained in U. P. Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward classes) Act, 1994, it was clearly stipu lated that if on the date of commencement of the said Act, reservation was in force under government orders relating to appointments to the posts to be filled by promotion such government orders were to continue to be effective till they were modified or revoked. On the strength of the aforesaid provision the learned Counsel urged that the respondent authority could not deny the benefits of reservation to the petitioner and consequently the recommendation of the selection committee did not require any interference. 7. The learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents has, however, tried to support the impugned order pointing out that there was no provision extending the benefits of reservation to the promotional post in the relevant service rules having statutory force and asserting that the service conditions which were not provided for m the rules, could be provided on y by a rule framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, as specifically provided for in Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958. The contention is that when Se statutory rules regulating the appointments on the promotions post did not provide for the benefits claimed by the petitioner such benefits cannot be extended to him merely on the strength of the government orders. The learned Standing Counsel has not disputed that no statutory rule in the exercise of jurisdiction envisaged under Article 309 of the Constitution of India has been framed extending the benefits claimed by the petitioner to the promo tional post in question. . . . 8 The question in regard to the providing of reservation m the matter of promotion was considered by the Apex Court m the case of Indira Sawhney and others etc. v. Union of India and others ere reported m 992 JT (6) SC 273 decided by the Constitution Bench to which this matter along with various other matters had been referred, in order to finally settle the legal position relating to reservation. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it becomes necessary to consider the implications arising under the aforesaid decision which have material bearing on the controversy raised herein. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it becomes necessary to consider the implications arising under the aforesaid decision which have material bearing on the controversy raised herein. 9 The Apex Court had observed in its aforesaid decision that any step taken by the State considering the claims of members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes for the appointment to public services and posts must be consistent with the maintenance of efficiency of administra tion This was indicated to be the constitutional mandate with regard to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes emphasising that the requirement of efficiency is an overriding mandate of the Constitution It was also pointed out that there was no warrant in Article 16 (4) of the Constitution to conclude from the expression reservation of appointments or posts that reservation extends not merely to the initial appointment but to every stage of promotion. It was further pointed out that the object, context and the plain language of Article 16 (4) of the Constitution make it clear that the job reservation can be done only in the direct recruit-Sent and not when the higher posts are filled up by promotion. It was also pointed out that appointment and conditions of service are two sepa rate incidents of service: Conditions of service exclusively come within the expression -matters relating to employment and are covered by Article 16 (1) and not by Article 16 (4 ). Article 16 (4) of the Constitution does not permit reservation either to the selection posts or in any other- manner m the process of promotion. It was further emphasised that the executive instructions can be issued only when there are no statutory provisions on the subject. Farther the executive instructions, can also be issued to supplement the statutory provisions when these provisions are silent on the subject of reservation. It was again observed that when reservation are kept m promotion, the inevitable consequence is the phenomenon of juniors, however, low in the seniority list stealing a march over the seniors to the promotional post and further when reservations are done at every promotional level the juniors not only steal a march over their seniors in the same grade but also over their superiors at more than one higher level. The inevitable result in all fields of administration of this phenomenon has a deleterious effect on the entire administration and the efficiency of administration is jeopardised. The reservations in promotions are, therefore, inconsistent with the efficiency of administration and are impermissible under the Constitution. 10. The Apex Court went on to observe that the principal objective of promotion is to secure the best possible incumbents for the higher positions while maintaining the morale of the whole organisation as it not only, serves the public interest but is founded on the inherent principle that the higher one moves the greater is the responsibility he assumes. It was further indicated that reservation in promotion is constitutionally impermissible as, once the advantage and disadvantage are made equal and are brought in one class or group than any further benefit extended for promotion on the inequality existing prior to be brought in the group would be treating equals unequality. It would not be eradicating effects of past discrimination but perpetuating it. 11. The Honble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision pointed out that the reservation in the case of promotion is normally provided only when the promotion is by selection i. e. , on the basis of merit for if the promotion is on the basis of seniority, such a rule may not be called for, in such a case the position obtaining in the lower category reflected in the higher category (promotion category) also. The Apex Court emphasised that it must not be forgotten that the efficiency of administration is of such paramount importance that it would be unwise and impermissible to make any reservation at the cost of efficiency of administration. Crutches cannot be provided through out ones career. That would not be in the interest of the efficiency of the administration nor in larger interest of the nation. 12. However, while holding that the Article 16 (4) of the Constitution does not permit reservation even in the matter of promotion, the Apex Court directed that the decision on the aforesaid question shall operate only prospectively and shall not affect promotions already made, whether on temporary, officiating or regular/permanent basis. 12. However, while holding that the Article 16 (4) of the Constitution does not permit reservation even in the matter of promotion, the Apex Court directed that the decision on the aforesaid question shall operate only prospectively and shall not affect promotions already made, whether on temporary, officiating or regular/permanent basis. It was further directed that wherever reservations are already provided in the matter of promotions- be it Central services or State services for that matter services under any Corporation, authority or body falling under the definition of state in Article 12, such reservations shall continue in operation for a period of 5 years from the date of the judgment. It was further provided that within the aforesaid period it would be open to the appropriate authorities to revise, modify or re-issue the relevant rules to ensure the achievement of the objective of Article 16 (4) of the Constitution. The Apex Court made it clear that it would not be impermissible for the State to extend concessions and relaxations to members of reserved categories in the matter of promotion without compromising the efficiency of the administration. However, it would not be permissible to prescribe lower qualifying marks or a lesser level of evaluation for the members of reserved categories since that would compromise the efficiency of administration. 13. In the present case, the rules regulating the promotions do not ex u. net the benefit of reservation to the promotion post in question, as already noticed hereinabove. There is no reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes made under the rules governing promotions to the posts for Registrar Kanoongo, This Court in its decision in the case of Mohan Lal Mehrotra and others v. the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, New Delhi and others, reported in 1979 AWC 602, rendered by a Division Bench after noticing the several decisions of the Apex Court held that alterations in the existing rules by the administrative instructions could not be made and the existing rule could be modified only by amending the statutory rules in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution in exercise whereof they had been made. It was clearly held that no reservation for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in appointments made by promotion could be made on the basis of Government instruction. Govern ment orders in the statutory rules regulating the matter relating to promotion. It was clearly held that no reservation for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in appointments made by promotion could be made on the basis of Government instruction. Govern ment orders in the statutory rules regulating the matter relating to promotion. It is, therefore, obvious that government orders or instructions cannot alter a statutory rule in force. Observations similar in nature wore made by another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Krishna Pal Singh v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in 1981 UPLBSC 521, holding that a government order containing administrative instructions cannot override or amend the statutory rule proscribing procedure and criteria for promotion. It was further observed that in absence of amendment of statutory rule, instructions contained in the government orders, if contrary to the statutory rule have no binding effect and preference must be given to the statutory rules. It was, however, clarified that it has to be examined in each case as to whether any such government orders itself can be said to have a statutory character of the rule. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner has laid much emphasis on the provisions contained in sections contained in Section 3 (7) of the U. P. Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Act, 1994 which came into force on 23rd March, 1994. The aforesaid provision is to the following effect : "3. Reservation in favour of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes.- (v) In public services and posts, there shall be reserved at the stage of direct recruitment, the following percentages of vacancies to which recruitments are to be made in accordance with the roster referred to in sub-section (5) in favour of the persons belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes of citizens- (a) in the case of Scheduled Castes--twenty-one per cent (b) in the case of Scheduled Tribes-two per cent. (c) in the case of other Backward Classes of citizens twenty-seven per cent : Provided that the reservation under clause (a) shall not apply to the category of other backward classes of citizens specified in Schedule II. (2 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3 ). . . . . . . . . (2 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . date of commencement of this Act, reservation was (7) If, on the date of commencement. Of this Act, reservation was in force under government orders for appointment to posts to be filled by promotion, such government orders shall continue to be applicable till they are modified or revoked. " The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the aforesaid order has the effect of giving government order in the matter relating to the appointments to the post to be filled up by promotion a statutory character and consequently, the provisions contained in Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India regarding the matter relating to the appointment on promotional post in question will have to be deemed to have been amended accordingly. 15. This submission is devoid of merit and is not at all acceptable. The aforesaid provision only gives extended life to the government orders referred to therein. The government order by itself could not have the effect of altering or amending the statutory rules in question framed in exercise of the jurisdiction envisaged under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, specially when the Government was not vested with any jurisdiction to issue such orders by virtue of any provision contained In the rule itself. The government order by itself could not have the effect of altering or amending the statutory rules in question framed in exercise of the jurisdiction envisaged under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, specially when the Government was not vested with any jurisdiction to issue such orders by virtue of any provision contained In the rule itself. Further even in the rules in question, it had been specifically provided that the matters on which the rules are silent, the rules can be supplemented by the rules framed in exercise of the jurisdiction envisaged under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and till then by the rules framed under the notification, dated 16-7-1937 or the rules framed under Section 241 (2) of the Government of India Act, 1935 which were to continue in operation as contemplated under Article 313 of the Constitution of India. In face of such a stipulation specifically provided for the provisions contained in the relevant statutory rule itself, the petitioner cannot derive any benefit out of the provisions contained in Section 3 (7) of the aforesaid Act of 1994, 16. Moreover, as has been already noticed above, the Apex Court had clearly held that the reservation in the matter of promotion is not permis sible under the law and the reservation of appointments or posts under Article 16 (4) of the Constitution is confined to initial appointments only and cannot extend to providing reservation in the matter of promotion. However, the aforesaid decision was kept in abeyance for a period of 5 years only in respect of the specified category of cases where reservation had already been provided in the matter of promotion which reservations were allowed to continue in operation during the aforesaid period of five years to be computed from the date of judgment which is 16-11-1992. Within the aforesaid period, the Apex Court gave the liberty to the appropriate authorities to revive, modify or re-issue the relevant rules ensuring the achievement of the objective of Article 16 (4) of the Constitution. 17. Within the aforesaid period, the Apex Court gave the liberty to the appropriate authorities to revive, modify or re-issue the relevant rules ensuring the achievement of the objective of Article 16 (4) of the Constitution. 17. The provisions contained in Section 3 (7) of the U. P. Act No. 4 of 1994 referred to above which is heavily relied upon by the petitioner cannot be deemed to be subserving the objective contemplated under Article 16 (1) of the Constitution of India, as clarified in the aforesaid decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court, to which a reference has already been made herein above. It seems to me that instead of ensuring the achievement of the objective of Article 16 (4) of the Constitution of India as explained by the Apex Court, the provision in question has the effect of nullifying the said objective. Obviously, therefore, the said provision cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner. 18. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon the government orders, dated 18th October, 1994 and 10th October, 1994 wherein the reservation on the promotional posts enhanced to 21 per cent was provided to the persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes category. Taking into consideration the decision of this Court rendered by the Division Beach and the observations made by the Apex Court to which a reference has already been made hereinabove, these government orders are of no avail and cannot be deemed to alter in any manner whatsoever supplementing or supplanting the statutory rule regulating the appointments to the promo tional post in question. 19. Considering the facts and circumstances brought on record, if the matter is examined from the aforesaid point of view, that being the only view possible. I do not find any such legal infirmity in the impugned order which may justify any interference by this Court while exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction envisaged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 20. The Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed. .