Judgment ( 1. ) BY this petition under Articles 226 and 227 or the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the impugned order Annexure-P/5 dated 26/12/2001 filed along with amendment application (I. A. No. 9086/2005) which was allowed and the amendment was incorporated in the petition. By this order the petitioner who, at the relevant point of time, was serving on the post of Havildar has been discharged from the service on 26/12/2001. ( 2. ) THIS petition was originally filed seeking relief that order of discharge may not be passed and the proceedings of Medical Board be quashed. However, during the pendency of this, petition, the Medical Board examined the petitioner and on the recommendations of the report of Medical Board the petitioner has been directed to be discharged by the impugned order Annexure-P/5 dated 26/12/2001. ( 3. ) THE contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that admittedly the petitioner, at the relevant point of time, was serving on the post of Havildar and the provisions of Army Act, 1950 (in short the Act) are applicable to the petitioner. Under Section 192 of the said Act the Legislature has empowered the Central Government to make Regulations other than those specified in Section 191. In pursuance to the power conferred by the Legislature to the Central Government under Section 192 of the Act, the Regulations for the army persons were framed and the nomenciature of that Regulations is Regulations for Army, 1987 (in short the Regulations of 1987" ). The relevant extract of the said Regulations has been placed on record as Annexure-P/3. ( 4. ) IT has been vehemently argued by Shri Rajak, learned Counsel for the petitioner by inviting my attention to para 355 of the Regulations for Army that this para pertains to contraction of sexually transmitted disease. By inviting my attention to Clause (f) of para-355 of the said Regulations, it has been further submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that an OR is not to be discharged from service solely on account of his having contracted sexually transmitted disease. By inviting my attention to the averments made in the additional return filed on behalf of respondents, it has been submitted that the stand of the respondents is since the petitioner is suffering from Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (for brevity aids), therefore, the services of the petitioner are discharged. By inviting my attention to the averments made in the additional return filed on behalf of respondents, it has been submitted that the stand of the respondents is since the petitioner is suffering from Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (for brevity aids), therefore, the services of the petitioner are discharged. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner that the stand was taken by the respondents is de-hors to Clause (f) of Para-355 of the Regulations for the army persons and if that is the position, since Clause (f) do not warrant any discharge, therefore, the impugned order of discharge Anexure-P/5 be quashed. ( 5. ) PER contra, Shri Dharmendra Sharma, learned Asstt. Solicitor General, by inviting my attention to the policy annexed to the additional return, has submitted that since the petitioner is suffering from AIDS as well as Extrapulmonary Tuberculosis therefore, as per the policy Annexure-I dated 9th June, 2000, the petitioner was discharged from the service. By inviting my attention to the original return, it has been submitted by Shri Sharma, Asstt. Solicitor General, for respondents, that the petitioner became complete blind and, therefore, the second limb of Clause (f) of para-355 of the Regulations for Army would come into play and if that is the position, the order of discharge cannot be said to be de-hors to the Regulations. ( 6. ) REFUTING the averments made in the original return in regard to the permanent blindness to the petitioner, a rejoinder was submitted by the petitioner pleading therein that specially on account of wrong treatment at Jabalpur the petitioner developed temporary blindness and he was referred to Command Hospital, Pune where he was cured and the temporary blindness was eradicated. ( 7. ) THOUGH there is specific averment in regard to the eradication of temporary blindness but the same has not been specifically refuted by the respondents in their additional return. According to learned Asstt. Solicitor General, originally this fact is mentioned in their return. It was incumbent upon the respondents to deny this fact specifically, since there is specific averments in the rejoinder in that regard. Apart from this the respondents who are having entire records in their power and possession, failed to demonstrate that the petitioner is suffering from complete blindness and, therefore, mere saying in the return would not suffice. It was incumbent upon the respondents to deny this fact specifically, since there is specific averments in the rejoinder in that regard. Apart from this the respondents who are having entire records in their power and possession, failed to demonstrate that the petitioner is suffering from complete blindness and, therefore, mere saying in the return would not suffice. In this view of the matter, for dwell reasons, firstly, there is no specific denial in the additional return and secondly, the respondents did not file any document demonstrating that the petitioner is suffering from complete blindness, it cannot be said that the petitioner is suffering from the said disease. ( 8. ) ON bare perusal of the additional return filed by the respondents, it is gathered that the petitioner has no right to take shelter of para-355 (f) of the Regulations for Army. It has been orally argued by learned Assistant Solicitor General for the respondents that the petitioner may be referred to the Medical Board in order to ascertain whether he is suffering from complete blindness. But, there is no prayer as such nor there is any pleading in that regard either in the return or in the additional return filed on behalf of respondents. This Court fails to understand that the respondents referred the petitioner for his treatment at Command Hospital Pune. The documents pertain to the entire medical treatment of the petitioner are in the power and possession of the respondents. But, surprisingly in order to substantiate the stand of the respondents that the petitioner is a complete blind person, they did not file the requisite document. ( 9. ) SHRI Sharma, learned Assistant Solicitor General, thereafter invited my attention to Annexure-I dated 9th June, 2000 which is the policy of the respondents and has submitted that as per policy of the respondents, since the petitioner has developed confirm HIV disease with Extrapulmonary Tuberculosis which would constitute AIDS, therefore, rightly the services of the petitioner have been discharged. This argument would not help the respondents for the simple reason that it is well settled in law that the administrative order or executive instructions which are in contravention to the statutory rules or regulations will not be enforcible or will not override the statutory rules. ( 10. This argument would not help the respondents for the simple reason that it is well settled in law that the administrative order or executive instructions which are in contravention to the statutory rules or regulations will not be enforcible or will not override the statutory rules. ( 10. ) IN this regard, Shri Rajak, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has rightly placed reliance on two decision of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vidya Dhar Pande v. Vidyut Grih Siksha Samiti and Ors. AIR1989 SC 341 , [1989 (58 )FLR513 ], JT1988 (4 )SC 84 , (1989 )I LLJ81 SC , 1988 (2 ) SCALE916 , (1988 )4 SCC734 , [1988 ]supp3 SCR442 , 1989 (1 )UJ275 (SC ) and Gujarat Housing Board engineers Association and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. [1994 (68 )FLR415 ], JT1993 (6 )SC 469 , 1993 (4 )SCALE383 , (1994 )2 SCC24 , [1993 ]supp3 SCR638 , 1994 (1 )SLJ117 (SC ), 1994 (1 ) UJ176 (SC ). Thus, the case of the petitioner and the impugned order of discharge Annexure-P/5 dated 20/12/2001 would come under the ambit and sweep of first limb of para-355 (f) of the Regulations for Army and if that is the position, the Regulations are as clear like a noon day that the disease so mentioned in it cannot be stressed upto the extent to discharge an army person. ( 11. ) FOR the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned discharge order Annexure-P/5 dated 26/12/2001 is hereby quashed. The respondents are hereby directed to take the petitioner in service forthwith with all consequential benefits. ( 12. ) THIS petition is allowed with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 1,000/-, if pre-certified.