Judgment :- (Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for an issuance of a writ of certiorari as stated therein.) P.Sathasivam, J. By consent of all the parties, the writ petitions themselves are taken up for disposal. 2. In WP.No.23053 of 2005, R. Sundar Raju, challenges the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench dated 14.07.2005 made in O.A.No.150 of 2005, in and by which the Tribunal directed the Pondicherry Administration to restore the applicant therein, viz., V.Ramakrishnan, to the post of Chief Engineer, Public Works Department (in short "PWD"), Pondicherry. Questioning the very same order, Pondicherry Administration (PWD) has filed WP.No.24008 of 2005. 3. Since the issues raised in both the writ petitions are one and the same and arise from the very same order passed by the Tribunal, the writ petitions are disposed of by the following order. 4. For convenience, the parties are referred as arrayed before the Tribunal. The applicant, V.Ramakrishnan preferred O.A.No.150 of 2005 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, challenging the order of the Secretary to Government, Local Administration and Public Works Department, Government of Pondicherry dated 14.02.2005, in and by which the applicant, who was on short term deputation to the PWD as Chief Engineer, was repatriated to his parent Department, namely, Central Public Works Department. As per the Draft Recruitment Rules, the post of Chief Engineer in the PWD is carrying a scale of pay of Rs.14300-400-18300 and is required to be filled up by promotion, failing which by transfer on deputation. As per the then Recruitment Rules, promotion is to be made from the post of Superintending Engineer with 5 years regular service in that grade. (a) Since one Subash Chandra Bose, Chief Engineer, Pondicherry, retired on 31.10.2002 and no eligible officer fulfilling the requisite condition of service as per the Recruitment Rules was not available, the post of Chief Engineer could not be filled up by promotion. Since the post of Chief Engineer and the feeder post of Superintending Engineer carried same pay scale, Government of Pondicherry initiated steps to revise the post of Chief Engineer. However, on account of immediate exigency to fill up the post of Chief Engineer, Government of Pondicherry resorted to deputation on a short-term basis. Since the post of Chief Engineer and the feeder post of Superintending Engineer carried same pay scale, Government of Pondicherry initiated steps to revise the post of Chief Engineer. However, on account of immediate exigency to fill up the post of Chief Engineer, Government of Pondicherry resorted to deputation on a short-term basis. Accordingly, one P.P.Srinivasan, who was working in Central Public Works Department was taken on a short term deputation as Chief Engineer with effect from 25.11.2002 and he continued in the said post till his repatriation to his parent Department on 30.04.2004. The applicant was taken on deputation as Chief Engineer as per the order dated 19.07.2004. In the said order it is expressly stated that the deputation is purely on short-term basis. (b) The 4th respondent before the Tribunal, viz., R. Sundar Raju, filed O.A.No.581 of 2004, challenging the practice of engaging persons from outside to hold the post of Chief Engineer. The said O.A., was disposed of on 31.08.2004, recording the submission of the Government of Pondicherry that they will follow the Recruitment Rules while filling up the post of Chief Engineer. As per proceedings dated 14.02.2005, the applicant, viz., V. Ramakrishnan, was repatriated to his parent Department by putting an end to the short term deputation and on his representation to the Central Public Works Department, he was posted as Director of Works (SR), Chennai, as per Office Order dated 21.04.2005 by the Office of Directorate General of Works, Central Public Works Department, New Delhi. After repatriation of the applicant, the 4th respondent therein, viz., R. Sundar Raju, was given full additional charge of the Chief Engineer with effect from 14.02.2005. Subsequently, the Government of Pondicherry convened a Departmental Promotion Committee (in short DPC) on 08.04.2005 and in that Committee, the 4th respondent / R. Sundar Raju, was promoted to the post of Chief Engineer and appointed in the existing vacancy as Chief Engineer on ad hoc basis and the said decision was communicated to him by proceedings dated 27.04.2005. The said R. Sundar Raju, assumed the Office of the Chief Engineer immediately on receipt of the proceedings. While so, V. Ramakrishnan, filed OA.No.150 of 2005, challenging the repatriation order dated 14.02.2005 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench. The said R. Sundar Raju, assumed the Office of the Chief Engineer immediately on receipt of the proceedings. While so, V. Ramakrishnan, filed OA.No.150 of 2005, challenging the repatriation order dated 14.02.2005 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench. R. Sundar Raju was not made a party in the said O.A., and latter, an application was filed in M.A.No.115 of 2005, for impleading him as 4th respondent and the said O.A., was allowed on 06.07.2005. (c) It is the claim of R. Sundar Raju that without affording adequate opportunity, the Tribunal, by order dated 14.07.2005, allowed the original application by setting aside the repatriation order, which is impugned in the said Original Application. Even though the applicant has no loco standi to challenge the appointment of R. Sundar Raju as Chief Engineer, since he hails from totally a different service, the Tribunal, exceeded its authority by granting the relief, which cannot be granted and thereby interfered with his promotion and consequential appointment as Chief Engineer. In such a circumstance, the said R. Sundar Raju has filed WP.No.23053 of 2005 and the Department has also filed WP.No.24008 of 2005, questioning the same order before this Court. 5. Heard Mr. K. Doraisami, Senior Counsel for petitioner in WP.23053/05 and for 4th respondent in WP.24008/05, Mr. K.K. Sashidharan, for for petitioner in WP.24008/05 and for respondents 2 and 3 in WP.23053/05 and Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram, Senior Counsel for R.1 in WP.23053/05 and for R.2 in WP.24008/05. 6. The only point for consideration in these writ petitions is, whether the Tribunal is justified in issuing direction to the Pondicherry Administration (PWD) for restoring the applicant to the post of Chief Engineer, PWD, Pondicherry? 7. By G.O.Ms.30 Local Administration and Public Works Department, Pondicherry dated 19.07.2004, the Lieutenant Governor Pondicherry, appointed the applicant V. Ramakrishnan, Superintending Engineer (Civil), Central Public Works Department as Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Pondicherry in the scale of pay of Rs.14,300-400-18,300/- on a short term deputation / temporary basis, pending selection of the regular incumbent by the Union Public Service Commission with effect from 01.07.2004 on the usual terms and conditions of the deputation as per the Rules in force. The said appointment was challenged by R. Sundar Raju, who is the 4th respondent in the present Original Application, viz., O.A.No.150 of 2005 and the applicant in O.A.No.581 of 2004. 8. The said appointment was challenged by R. Sundar Raju, who is the 4th respondent in the present Original Application, viz., O.A.No.150 of 2005 and the applicant in O.A.No.581 of 2004. 8. It is not in dispute that with reference to the claim of R. Sundar Raju, PWD filed a reply statement stating that the said R. Sundar Raju, is neither qualified for the post either under the promotion category or by transfer on deputation or by seniority. It is also not in dispute that by order dated 31.08.2004, the Tribunal, disposed of O.A.No.581 of 2004 with a direction to the official respondents to follow the Recruitment Rules, as and when the post of Chief Engineer, Public Works Department is filled up on regular basis. 9. It is the grievance of the applicant that in view of the fact that his appointment was though on deputation, the same is subject to pending selection of regular incumbent by the Union Public Service Commission (in short UPSC). In other words, according to him, till regular incumbent is selected by UPSC, he is entitled to continue in the post of Chief Engineer, PWD, Pondicherry. By proceedings dated 27.04.2005, based on the recommendations of the Department Promotional Committee held on 08.04.2005, promoted R. Sundar Raju, Superintending Engineer, PWD and appointed as Chief Engineer, purely on ad hoc basis in the scale of pay of Rs.14,300-400-18,300 in PWD, Pondicherry with immediate effect. 10. As per the Recruitment Rules 1997, for the post of Chief Engineer, the method of recruitment is promotion, failing which by transfer on deputation. The qualification prescribed is, suitable of the regular holder of the post of Principal Engineer with 5 years' regular service in the grade of Principal Engineer / Superintending Engineer. As per the Draft Recruitment Rules 2000, for the post of Chief Engineer, the method of recruitment is by promotion, failing which by transfer on deputation. The qualification prescribed is, Superintending Engineer in the scale of pay of Rs.14,300-400-18,300 with three years' regular service in the grade. Both in the Recruitment Rules, 1997 and in the Amended Recruitment Rules, 2000, it is made clear that the deputationists shall not be eligible for consideration for appointment by promotion. 11. The DPC, in their meeting held on 08.04.2005, considered the question of selection of Officers for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer, Pondicherry, on ad hoc basis. Both in the Recruitment Rules, 1997 and in the Amended Recruitment Rules, 2000, it is made clear that the deputationists shall not be eligible for consideration for appointment by promotion. 11. The DPC, in their meeting held on 08.04.2005, considered the question of selection of Officers for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer, Pondicherry, on ad hoc basis. After going through the Service Records, the Committee, assessed that R. Sundar Raju, is fit for promotion and recommended him for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer Group "A" in the scale of pay of Rs.14,300-400-18,300/- PWD, Pondicherry against the existing vacancy on ad hoc basis. In this regard it is relevant to note that when the very same R. Sundar Raju, questioning appointment of the applicant, viz., V. Ramakrishnan in O.A.No.581 of 2004, the PWD has filed a reply stating that R. Sundar Raju, is neither qualified for the post either under the promotion category or by transfer on deputation, or by seniority. The said factual aspect is not in dispute. However, it is the claim of the said R. Sundar Raju as well as the PWD, Government of Pondicherry is that in view of the Draft Recruitment Rules 2000, for the post of Chief Engineer, the eligibility being three years' of regular service in the post of Superintending Engineer and since the DPC recommended his name, he was duly appointed and posted as Chief Engineer, PWD, Pondicherry. As rightly pointed out by Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram, learned senior counsel as well as as observed by the Tribunal, in 2004, even according to the Pondicherry Government, the said R. Sundar Raju was not neither qualified for the post either under the promotion category or by transfer of deputation or by seniority, since as per Recruitment Rules, 1997, minimum qualification for being considered for the post of Chief Engineer is 5 years' regular service in the post of Superintending Engineer. However, it is the claim of the Government of Pondicherry and R. Sundar Raju, is that the applicant being a deputationist, cannot question the decision of the Government; secondly, as per the Draft Recruitment Rules 2000, the said R. Sundar Raju, is eligible to be appointed to the post of Chief Engineer, PWD, Pondicherry. 12. Admittedly, the Draft Recruitment Rules have not been approved by UPSC. 12. Admittedly, the Draft Recruitment Rules have not been approved by UPSC. It is relevant to note that in para 10 of the affidavit filed in support of W.P.No.24008 of 2005, the Joint Secretary to Government (Works & Power) Chief Secretariat, Pondicherry, has stated that, "10. I humbly submit that in the additional statement filed by us we submitted that the administration requested the UPSC to revise the Recruitment Rules for the post of Chief Engineer in order to consider the promotion from among the Superintending Engineers who have completed 3 years service instead of 5 years so as to extend the promotional opportunities to the incumbents of the Department. The approval of the UPSC is awaited. ........" In such a circumstance, in the absence of approval by UPSC, it is not clear how R. Sundar Raju, is appointed as Chief Engineer by applying the Draft Recruitment Rules. 13. No doubt, learned Government Pleader (Pondy) by drawing our attention to the case of Abraham Jacob vs. Union of India reported in 1998 (4) SCC 65 submitted that even in the absence of approval to the Draft Recruitment Rules, the appointment can be made on the basis of the provisions contained in the draft rule by virtue of an administrative order of the Government. In the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, "Since the statutory rule had not come into force and yet promotion could be given on the basis of the provisions contained in the draft rule by virtue of an administrative order of the Government such promotees cannot claim a greater advantage than the direct recruits having come into the cadre on the basis of the aforesaid draft rules. ...." The above conclusion makes it clear that though promotions can be made based on the draft rule, such promotees cannot claim a greater advantage than the direct recruits. From this, it cannot be claimed that de hors to the approval of the draft rules, appointments can be made, particularly when even according to the Government appointee R.Sundar Raju, is not qualified as per the existing Recruitment Rules. 14. In O.A.No.581 of 2004 the stand of the respondents / Pondicherry PWD is that R. Sundar Raju, the petitioner in WP.No.23053 of 2005 was not qualified to hold the post of Chief Engineer as he has not put in 5 years as Superintending Engineer. 14. In O.A.No.581 of 2004 the stand of the respondents / Pondicherry PWD is that R. Sundar Raju, the petitioner in WP.No.23053 of 2005 was not qualified to hold the post of Chief Engineer as he has not put in 5 years as Superintending Engineer. The Recruitment Rules for the post of Chief Engineer, PWD, Pondicherry has been framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and notified in the gazette dated 07.01.1997. Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution have statutory force and binding on the Government. No reliance was made on the draft recruitment rules in O.A.No.581 of 2004 since to the knowledge of the Government of Pondicherry, the draft rules have no force of law. At the time of disposal of OA.581 of 2004 Sundar Raju had put in less than 3 years as Superintending Engineer. Now, the stand of PWD, Pondicherry in the present writ petition is that Sundar Raju has put in more than 3 years as Superintending Engineer and hence as per the amended Rules (yet to be approved by UPSC and gazetted) under which 3 years qualifying service as Superintending Engineer is sufficient and hence the impugned order appointing him as Chief on ad hoc basis is valid in law. Admittedly, as on date, Sundar Raju has not put in 5 years of qualifying service as Superintending Engineer. Thus, the Government of Pondicherry is pleading change of circumstance between the situation prevailing in 2004 when O.A.No.581 of 2005 was decided and now when the impugned order appointing Sundar Raju as Chief Engineer on ad hoc basis was passed to justify the appointment. The above argument is without merit of the following reasons. 15. It is trite law that administrative instructions cannot over ride the rules made under Article 309. Hence, the 309 rules gazetted on 01.01.1997 prescribing 5 years as qualifying service will prevail over the administrative instructions prescribing 3 years as qualifying service since the administrative instruction is in conflict with the rules made under Article 309. Administrative instructions in conflict with Article 309 rules and the 309 recruitment rules cannot co exist. 16. Hence, the 309 rules gazetted on 01.01.1997 prescribing 5 years as qualifying service will prevail over the administrative instructions prescribing 3 years as qualifying service since the administrative instruction is in conflict with the rules made under Article 309. Administrative instructions in conflict with Article 309 rules and the 309 recruitment rules cannot co exist. 16. But in order to get over this legal hurdle the PWD, Pondicherry has raised the contention that the Recruitment Rules for the post of Chief Engineer formed under Article 309 have become inoperative and hence the administrative instruction in the form of amended rules alone are operating in the field. There is no basis for stating that the recruitment rules have become inoperative. Recruitment Rules have statutory force and unless repealed in a manner known to law the rules will operate. No material has been placed to show that the Recruitment Rules for the post of Chief Engineer, PWD, Government of Pondicherry have become inoperative or have been repealed. Until the amended rules are approved by the UPSC the Recruitment Rules already notified alone operate. 17. In this connection reference may be made to the following two decisions of the Supreme Court. In the case of Dr. Rajinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and Others reported in 2001 (5) SCC 482 , one candidate, although had not completed the minimum period of 10 years of service in Punjab Civil Medical Service Class I as required by Rule 9A of the PCMS Class I rules was recommended by the DPC for being promoted to the post of Deputy Director (Health services). In doing so, DPC relied on Presidential notification dated 09.04.1981. The Supreme Court held in para 5 to 8 that, without amending the rules, DPC could not have promoted the respondent. The Supreme court also held that it is a settled position of law that no government order, notification or circular can be a substitute for the statutory rules framed with the authority of law. The Supreme Court further held that the High Court erred in law in observing that even without amendment of the rules Class II of the service could be treated as Class I only by way of notification. Following such a course in effect amounts to amending the rules by a government order and ignoring the mandate of article 309 of the Constitution. 18. Following such a course in effect amounts to amending the rules by a government order and ignoring the mandate of article 309 of the Constitution. 18. In the case of Vimal Kumari vs. State of Haryana reported in 1998 (4) SCC 114 , the Supreme Court held that draft recruitment rules which are yet to acquire statutory status cannot be treated to be rules under article 309 of the Constitution for want of notification and can be followed only in emergent situations. The Supreme Court further held that the Draft Rules in that case were not notified for about 8 years nor the government has offered any explanation for not doing so. Held on fact draft rules cannot be invoked for regulating promotion criteria. 19. It is true that Government servant on deputation can be reverted to his parent cadre at any time. While there is no quarrel with regard to the said proposition, it is to be noted that while appointing the applicant, viz., V. Ramakrishnan as Chief Engineer, PWD, though on a short term deputation / temporary basis, the notification makes it clear that the said appointment is "pending selection of the regular incumbent by the UPSC." It is not the case of the Pondicherry Administration that regular selection was made for the post of Chief Engineer by the UPSC and the 4th respondent has to be accommodated in the place of the applicant. 20. Further, as rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel as well as observed by the Tribunal, even on 19.07.2004, when the applicant, viz., V. Ramakrishnan was appointed as Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Pondicherry on deputation basis, he is fully qualified for being considered to the post of Chief Engineer. So long as the draft rules are approved by the competent authority, viz., UPSC, the present incumbent, viz., R. Sundar Raju, is ineligible to be appointed as Chief Engineer, PWD, Pondicherry. Though it is argued that in 2004 when the Pondicherry Government filed a reply affidavit in O.A.No.581 of 2004, the said R. Sundar Raju, was ineligible, it is not their case that in 2005, he became eligible, based on the existing Recruitment Rules. According to them only by applying draft rules, he is eligible to be appointed for the post of Chief Engineer. We are satisfied that these material aspects have been correctly appreciated by the Tribunal. According to them only by applying draft rules, he is eligible to be appointed for the post of Chief Engineer. We are satisfied that these material aspects have been correctly appreciated by the Tribunal. Under these circumstances, we do not find any merit in the above writ petitions; on the other hand, we are in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal. Accordingly, both the writ petitions fail and the same are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected WPMPs., and WVMP., are also dismissed.