JUDGMENT 1. - Since all these writ petitions raise common questions of law and facts, they were heard analogously and are being disposed of by a common order. 2. The petitioners who were the members of Rajasthan Tehsildar Service were promoted to the Rajasthan Administrative service against the promotion quota of 1981. Said promotions were assailed by filing appeals before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal. The appeals stood allowed and promotions were quashed with further direction to the State Government and Board of Revenue to reconvene the D.P.C. for the year 1981 as per relevant rules. Meeting of D.P.C. was convened as per directions of the to Tribunal and order dated Feb. 26, 1988 came to be issued. Cases of the petitioners were reviewed by the DPC and they were not found suitable for promotion. The act of the State of Rajasthan in not promoting the petitioners to the Rajasthan Administrative Services has been assailed in the instant writ petitions. It has also been prayed that circular dated October 18, 1976 as well as the order of tribunal and subsequent orders issued on the basis of the said order be quashed and the petitioners be promoted against the quota of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes on the basis of point roster irrespective of the percentage of the direct recruitment. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners canvassed that the se Circular dated October 18, 1976 suffers from the voice of unconstitutionality. There is no rationale and justification for excluding reservation in promotions where the direct recruitment is more than 66.66%. There is no justification for denial of benefit of reservation in promotion. The circular is self contradictory. In the first place, it says that area of reservation is to be extended as per various decision of the Govt. of India but then it restricts the benefit of reservation to the members of S.C. and S.T. where direct recruitment quota exceeds 66.66%. This circular is violative of Rule 8 of the Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules, 1954. Rules do not contemplate any exception and not exclude reservation in the matters of promotion in case the percentage of direct recruitment exceeds 66.66%. By an administrative circular the provision of Rules can not be given go bye. An Administrative circular cannot override the Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Rules do not contemplate any exception and not exclude reservation in the matters of promotion in case the percentage of direct recruitment exceeds 66.66%. By an administrative circular the provision of Rules can not be given go bye. An Administrative circular cannot override the Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. It was further contended that the impugned order is based on the that aforesaid circular and both the circular and the order of the tribunal deserve to be quashed. 4. Learned Additional Advocate General on the other hand urged that circular was validly issued and there is no illegality in the order of the Tribunal. 5. I have pondered over the rival submissions and carefully weighed the material on record. 6. Undeniably the petitioners had assailed the validity of circular after a delay of 12 years. Aforementioned circular provides that reservation quota existed in a case where the percentage of the direct recruitment was not more than two third of the total number of posts to be filled up. In the instant case it is not disputed that more than two third of the posts were to be filled by direct recruitment. Therefore in view of the circular no reservation could be made for the benefit of S.C. and S.T. Thus member of reservation quota could not have been selected for promotion. There is no illegality in the impugned order of the tribunal. In so far as arguments in respect of validity of circular are concerned I am unable to persuade myself to agree with the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. The petitions suffers from delay and laches and after such a long period there is no justification to adjudge the constitutionality of the aforementioned circular as rights of the persons inter se had crystallised. 7. In view of what I have discussed here-in-above, i do not find any merit in the, writ petitions, they are accordingly dismissed. No costs.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******