JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is pending admission since 1993. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that his father late Shri S.B. Verma who was working on the post of Principal, Govt. College Ratangarh died while in service on 3.12.1991 and he being M.Sc. (Physics) with 1st class marks when moved application for recruitment on the post of Lecturer his application was rejected vide letter dated 2.1.1992 (Anx.1) and 6.2.92 (Anx. 2). It has been prayed that both these rejection letters may kindly be quashed and the respondents be directed to provide appointment to the petitioner on the post of Lecturer in Physics as per his qualification. Reliance has been placed on 1992 WLR 161 and 1994(1) WLC (Raj.) 533 (Smt. Geeta Devi Vs. State) 3. Reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating that the petitioner is not entitled to be appointed on the post of Lecturer in view of amended rules of 1989. Reliance has been placed on State of Raj. Vs. Chandra Narain Verma [1994 SCC (L&S) 734]. 4. On the contrary learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Circular dated 1.4.1989 relied upon by the respondents has been set aside by this Court in S. B. C. W. Petition No. 3171/91 Smt. Shasi Prabhu Swami Vs. State of Raj. decided on 24.4.1991 holding that there is no legal bar against the appointment on a State Service except the five major State Services. He has placed reliance on Smt. Usha Dwivedi Vs. State of Raj. [ 1991(2) RLR 178 ]. 5. Mr. Singhvi has not been able to controvert the said submissions of Mr. Vyas. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record as well as the case law cited at the Bar. 7. It is well settled that administrative instructions issued by the Government can supplement the rules but that cannot override the statutory rules. This Court in Smt. Sashi Prabhu Swami's case (supra) while dealing with the Circular dated 1.4.89 has held that the Circular dated 1.4.1989 issued by the Government has to be interpreted as far as possible consistent with the provisions of the statutory rules and, therefore, the circular cannot be read as imposing a legal bar against appointment on all State Services. The only bar is against appointment on five State Service Posts specified in Rule 3 of 1975 Rules. The only bar is against appointment on five State Service Posts specified in Rule 3 of 1975 Rules. Admittedly, the service for which the petitioner claims his right of consideration is the post of Lecturer as according to him he is fully qualified and eligible for the post, does not fall within the purview of Rule 3. Under these circumstances, the rejection of the applications of the petitioner vide Anx. 1 dated 2.1.1992 and Anx. 2 dated 6.2.92 is not sustainable. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders Anx. 1 dated 2.1.1992 and Anx. 2 dated 6.2.92 rejecting the petitioner's application for the post of Lecturer, are quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for the post of Lecturer (Physics) according to rules if he is eligible.Petition allowed. *******