JUDGMENT : S.M. Soni, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20th June 1997 of learned single Judge whereby the petition of the appellant-petitioner is dismissed. 2. In response to the issuance of notice learned Advocate Mr. Bambhania has appeared for respondents. Heard the learned Advocates. 3. The petitioner was appointed as Jr. Clerk in the office of the Executive Engineer, Amreli-respondent No. 2 on compassionate ground as her husband died of accident in harness. The petitioner was appointed on usual terms and conditions of appointment one of which required petitioner to receive the prescribed pre-service training and pass the post-training examination within not more than three chances as prescribed in the Gujarat Non Secretariat Clerks and Clerk-typists (Training and Examination) Rules, 1970 ("Rules" for brevity). 4. The petitioner having failed in the third trial apprehending that her services may be terminated, filed Regular Civil Suit No. 330 of 1993 in the Court of Civil Judge, (S.D.) Amreli. The learned Second Joint Civil Judge, (S.D.) and J.M.F.C. by his order of 30th December 1993 granted interim relief as prayed in Exh. 5 directing the defendants therein to grant additional chances to appear in the post-training examination and refrain to pass an order to relieve her without following the formality referred to in Exhs. 4/2 and 4/3. 5. The State being aggrieved by the said order below Exh. 5 preferred Civil Misc. Appeal No. 10/94 before the District Court. Pending hearing of that appeal the petitioner filed petition which came to be dismissed and the present appeal is filed. The learned single Judge relying on the judgments referred to in the order dismissed the petition. The judgments relied on have upheld the order of termination of services of a Jr. Clerk on account of failure to pass the post-training examination within three chances. It is further held that no exception can be made for the persons who are appointed on compassionate grounds. The learned single Judge has dismissed the petition also on the ground that the petitioner has also availed of the remedy before the Civil Court which is competent to grant the relief prayed for in the petition. 6. Learned Advocate Mr. It is further held that no exception can be made for the persons who are appointed on compassionate grounds. The learned single Judge has dismissed the petition also on the ground that the petitioner has also availed of the remedy before the Civil Court which is competent to grant the relief prayed for in the petition. 6. Learned Advocate Mr. Parikh contended before the Court that the contention raised by the petitioner is no more res integra as the question raised in this petition has been referred to larger Bench on 30th July 1992 in Spl. Civil Application No. 62/1992 and the same is pending. Mr. Parikh further contended that in view of the judgment in the case of Umeshkumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and Others, (1994) 4 Supreme Court cases 138, the object of compassionate appointment is to relieve the family of the financial destitute and to help it to get over the emergency. Mr. Parikh contended that the object of granting compassionate employment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis, however, if they are required to follow the formalities of employment like an ordinary candidate, the purpose of compassionate appointment may be frustrated. He has also contended that in view of the fluid position of law, the learned Judge ought not to have dismissed the petition in limine, but after admitting ought to have granted interim relief as prayed for. 7. It is not disputed that appointment on the post of clerk and clerk-typist in the Gujarat Non Secretariat Services, be it a regular appointment or an appointment on compassionate ground is governed by "the Rules". Relevant Rules to appreciate the contentions raised by Mr. Parikh and the learned Advocate Mr. Bhamania are as under: 8. "3. They shall apply to candidates selected for appointment to the posts of clerks and clerk-typists in the offices of Heads of Departments/Offices and offices under their administrative control to which the Gujarat Non-Secretariat Clerk-typists and Typists (Direct Recruitment Procedure), Rules, 1970 apply: 9. Provided that any such person has before the appointed date passed the relevant post-training examination or has been exempted from passing the relevant post-training examination, he shall not be required to pass an examination as provided in these rules: 10. Provided that any such person has before the appointed date passed the relevant post-training examination or has been exempted from passing the relevant post-training examination, he shall not be required to pass an examination as provided in these rules: 10. Provided further that where any such person has before the appointed date exhausted all the chances prescribed under the old scheme or rules for passing the relevant examination and has accordingly failed to pass the relevant post-training examination, nothing in these rules shall, save as expressly provided therein entitle him to appear in an examination as provided in these rules. 11. 5. Every candidate selected for appointment to the post of clerks or clerk-typists in the offices specified in Rule 3 shall be required to receive pre-service training in the Administrative Training School or training centers at Ahmedabad, Baroda and Rajkot and other places where the training class is organised for a period of 2 months. This shall include theoretical training for 1½ months and practical training for remaining 15 days. 12. 6. On the conclusion of the training, a candidate shall be required to appear at the post-training examination and to pass it in not more than three chances: Provided that the chances already availed of shall be counted as having been availed of under these rules: Provided further that candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes may be given one more chance: Provided further that if in the case of any such candidate the State Government is satisfied that he could not pass the examination at which he had his last chance for reasons beyond his control or that he failed to pass such examination by a very narrow margin of marks, the State Government may, after recording reasons in writing give him one more chance to pass the examination on payment of examination fee of fifteen rupees: Provided further that if a candidate fails to pass in the examination in his first and/or second (and/or third chance in the case of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates), he shall be required to appear in the subsequent examination/s held after the expiry of 30 days from the date of declaration of the examination in which he failed, but he shall not be required to attend the training class again. 7. 7. A candidate shall be appointed as a clerk or clerk-typist in offices mentioned in Rule 3 for which they are selected only after he has received the prescribed training and pass the post-training examination. Normally appointment as a clerk or clerk-typist in the said offices shall be offered to a successful candidate within six months from the date of his passing the post-training examination. 8. (1) If a candidate fails to receive the prescribed training and/or fails to pass post-training examination as required under these rules, he shall not be eligible for appointment as a regular clerk or clerk-typist, as the case may be, in the offices mentioned in Rule 3. (2) If a candidate who is appointed as a clerk or a clerk-typist as a stop-gap arrangement subject to undergoing training and/or passing the post-training examination fails to pass the post-training examination as required under these rules, his service shall be terminated. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (a) of sub-rule(1) of Rule 21 of the Gujarat Non Secretariat Clerks, Clerk-typists (Direct Recruitment Procedure) Rules, 1970, a candidate who is appointed as a clerk or a clerk-typist subject to undergoing training and/or passing the examination shall get seniority from the date of joining service, if he completes the post-training and passes the examination as prescribed in Rule 7 within three chances (four chances in case of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes candidates): Provided that seniority of a candidate as referred to above shall be counted from the date of passing the post-training examination, if he fails to pass the examination as prescribed in Rule 7 within three chances (four chances in case of a Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes candidate)." (4) The seniority of a candidate appointed as a clerk or clerk-typist prior to the commencement of these rules under the Central Recruitment Scheme shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (3) of this rule." Rule 7 referred to above specifically provides that a candidate shall be appointed as a clerk or clerk-typist in offices mentioned in Rule 3 for which they are selected only after he has received the prescribed pre-service training and pass the post-training examination. 13. Normally appointment as a clerk or clerk-typist in the said offices shall be offered to a successful candidate within six months from the date of his passing the post-training examination. 13. Normally appointment as a clerk or clerk-typist in the said offices shall be offered to a successful candidate within six months from the date of his passing the post-training examination. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 provides that if a candidate who is appointed as a clerk or a clerk-typist as a stop-gap-arrangement subject to undergoing training and/or passing the post-training examination fails to pass the post-training examination as required under these rules, his service shall be terminated. 14. The rules are rules framed in exercise of powers conferred by Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the rules are the statutory rules. Any administrative instructions cannot override, enlarge or reduce the scope of the rule framed under Article 309. Administrative instructions can no doubt supplement rules framed under Article 309 but cannot supplant them. In case of any inconsistency administrative instructions would give way to the rules. Government cannot by an executive order undo or annul rights of a Government servant provided in the statutory rules. Keeping in mind this principle of interpretation of rules the contentions raised by the petitioners are to be appreciated. The case of the petitioner is that though the petitioner has not been able to clear the post-training examination in three trials, service of the petitioner cannot be terminated in view of the notification dated 15th January 1979 unless the additional chance to those who have been appointed on compassionate ground is given. In view of this, it is clear that appointee on a compassionate ground is required to pass the examination. The petitioner also contended that the services of widow an appointee on compassionate ground cannot be terminated also without prior permission of General Administrative Department as stated in the direction of 1st August 1989. 15. If the rules provide for only three chances and the administrative instructions provide for additional two chances, can that administrative instruction be said to be supplement to the rules or overriding, enlarging or reducing the scope of the rules? Rule 7 of the rules specifically provides that a candidate would be appointed as a clerk or clerk-typist only after he receives the prescribed training and passes the post training examination. Rule 7 of the rules specifically provides that a candidate would be appointed as a clerk or clerk-typist only after he receives the prescribed training and passes the post training examination. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 provides that if a candidate who is appointed as a clerk or a clerk-typist as a stop-gap-arrangement subject to undergoing training and/or passing the post-training examination fails to pass the post-training examination as required under these rules, his services shall be terminated. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 of the rules if read together with Rule 7 of the rules it is clear that any appointment of a candidate as a clerk or a clerk-typist shall be as a stop-gap-arrangement if the appointment is subject to undergoing training and/or passing the post-training examination. The said stop-gap-appointment becomes regular appointment only on passing the examination within the three chances as provided in Rule 6. On failure of a candidate to clear the post-training examination within stipulated chances, sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 comes into play. Unless the appointment of a candidate is a regular one no right is created on the post in favour of the candidate. 16. If the statutory rules stipulate number of chances, by administrative instructions, Government cannot extend the chances. This is very clear from sub-rules 3 and 4 of Rule 8 of the rules. Sub-rule (3) provides that notwithstanding anything contained in clause (a) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 21 of the Gujarat Non-Secretariat Clerks, Clerk-typists and Typists (Direct Recruitment Procedure) Rules, 1970 a candidate who is appointed as a clerk or a clerk-typist subject to undergoing training and/or passing the examination shall get seniority from the date of joining service, if he completes the training and passes the examination as prescribed in Rule 7 within three chances (four chances in case of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes candidate) provided that seniority of a candidate as referred to above shall be counted from the date of passing the post-training examination, if he fails to pass the examination as prescribed in Rule-7 within three chances (four chances in case of a Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes candidate). Thus, from sub-rule (3) of Rule 8 of the rules, it is clear that if the candidate passes the examination within the trials prescribed in Rule 7 his seniority shall be retained as from the date of joining services, be it as a stop-gap-arrangement or sometimes may be called ad hoc appointment, but if he does not pass the examination within the stipulated trials as prescribed in Rule 7, the seniority shall be counted from the date of passing the post-training examination. Thus, from sub-rule 3 of Rule 8 of the rules, it is clear that any trial after exhausting the third trial is not a matter of right for the candidate. A candidate loses his claim to post on his failure on third trial. It is the Government then, who has to decide whether he be granted further chances to appear in the examination. This is made clear by fourth proviso to Rule 6. However, if a candidate is given an additional chance as contemplated in third proviso to Rule 6 of the rules that may create a right in his favour and protect his seniority. Thus, from Rule 6 and sub-rule (2) and (3) of Rule 8 of the rules, it is clear that a regular appointment can be made only after pre-service training is completed and post-training examination is passed within stipulated chances and additional one as provided in Rule 6. It will be necessary to make clear that the additional chance may be granted if the State Government is satisfied that the candidate could not pass the examination at which he had his last chance for reasons beyond his control or that he failed to pass such examination by very narrow margin of marks. The State Government has to assign reasons for grant of additional chance. For an additional chance, it is necessary for the candidate to make representation making out a case that he could not pass the last chance for reasons beyond his control or that he failed to pass such examination by very narrow margin of marks. The fact that the candidate could not pass the examination for reasons beyond his control can only be known to the candidate. Said reasons would only be within his personal knowledge. The fact that the candidate could not pass the examination for reasons beyond his control can only be known to the candidate. Said reasons would only be within his personal knowledge. In the instant case, there is nothing on record to show that any such application since failure of the petitioner in the last chance, the result of which is declared on 4th October 1993 is made till date. There is a specific instruction in the said notification of 4th October 1993 that the services of candidates who have failed in third trial be terminated with immediate effect and the same be communicated to the General Administration Department of the State. 17. The circular of 20th June 1993 provides that if a request is made for additional two chances by way of grace to appear in the examination, then the candidate will appear in that examination as external and on his being declared successful he may be employed. 18. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that grant of two additional chances is by way of grace and not right in view of Govt. Resolution of 1st August 1979. The administrative instructions of 1st August, 1989, which in our opinion, either overrides or enlarges or reduces the scope of Rule 6 read with Rule 8(2) & (3) of the Rules is ultra vires the rules and cannot be relied on or acted upon for grant of additional chances by way of grace. Right to apply for additional chance does not create a right to appear for that chance. The appointment of the petitioner is as a stopgap-arrangement subject to undergoing pre-service training and or passing the post-training examination. This does not create a right in her favour till she qualifies herself for the same under Rule 6 by passing the examination within the stipulated chances and additional one if granted. In all the judgments relied on by the petitioner and also referred to by the learned Judge in her judgment this point was not there. This apart, third proviso to Rule 6 of the rules contemplates for one additional chance by way of grace in the circumstances stated in that proviso. That third proviso to Rule 6 has nothing to do with additional two chances as referred in Government Resolution either of 15th January 1989 or 1st August 1989. This apart, third proviso to Rule 6 of the rules contemplates for one additional chance by way of grace in the circumstances stated in that proviso. That third proviso to Rule 6 has nothing to do with additional two chances as referred in Government Resolution either of 15th January 1989 or 1st August 1989. Therefore, in our opinion, said judgments also very clearly state that said additional two chances under the Govt. Resolution does not create right if read in the light of sub-rule (3) of Rule 8 of the rules. 19. This apart the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Umeshkumar (supra) highlights the object of granting compassionate employment. The said judgment does not say that the terms and conditions of regular appointment are not applicable to an appointee on compassionate ground. Compassionate appointment otherwise then would create a separate class of appointees which can never be an intention of the Government. 20. The petition, in our opinion, has been rightly dismissed otherwise also on the ground that the petitioner has availed the remedy before the Civil Court. The petitioner has filed Civil Suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 330/1993 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge. In an application for interim relief, learned Judge has granted interim relief. State being aggrieved by the grant of interim relief has preferred an appeal and pending appeal the petitioner has filed Special Civil Application in this Court. How a litigant can prosecute two proceeding in two competent forums for the same relief? In our opinion, once the litigant has submitted to jurisdiction of one forum which is competent to grant relief, then other forum ordinarily should not entertain such proceeding and simultaneously. By a statement that proceedings are pending before other forum, puts the other forum on guard before exercising jurisdiction. Such statement may at the most relieve petitioner from being held guilty of suppression of fact as to other proceedings. The petitioner has in paragraph 9 specifically stated that the suit is filed and an appeal by the respondent (defendant there) and the same is pending. Despite this state of fact in paragraph 13 of the petition, it is stated that the petitioner has not filed any other petition either before this Honourable Court or before any other Court of India in the same subject-matter. The petition is filed on 5th August 1995. Despite this state of fact in paragraph 13 of the petition, it is stated that the petitioner has not filed any other petition either before this Honourable Court or before any other Court of India in the same subject-matter. The petition is filed on 5th August 1995. Affidavit-in-reply is filed on 27th July 1996 and in that affidavit-in-reply the respondent has stated that said suit is withdrawn on 13th June 1996. It is not shown by the petitioner that the withdrawal of that suit is either conditional or unconditional. The petitioner has not filed any affidavit-in-rejoinder. Thus, withdrawal of the suit without permission in our opinion, concludes the proceedings and does not entitle the petitioner to prosecute this petition. In one breath the petitioner says that she has filed Civil Suit on the same subject-matter. In other breath says that no other petition is filed before any Court in India. These statements in our opinion are self-contradictory and does not entitle the petitioner to prosecute the petition. In our opinion, the learned Judge has rightly held that the petition is not maintainable. In view of the above facts, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Notice is discharged. The order to maintain status quo is vacated. Notice discharged.