Judgment 1. We heard Mr. Sunil Kumar Mandal, Standing Counsel-XV on behalf of the appellants. 2. The Single Judge negatived the contention of the appellants that the appointment of the respondent (original writ petitioner) was illegal. The Single Judge held that even if it be held that the merit list was not approved by the Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, it had received specific approval by letter no. 112, dated 20th July, 1992 by which he cancelled the order terminating the service of the writ petitioner and also passed an order for payment of his salary. With regard to contention of the State Government that the reservation policy was not approved, the Single Judge found that the facts in this regard had not been placed. 3. As a matter of fact, the procedure for making appointment of ministerial staff in Education Department is governed by the Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. These Rules came into effect on 13th August, 1974. It is true that subsequently certain guidelines by way of circulars came to be issued for appointment to Class-III and Class-IV posts. However, it is well settled that where the Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India are in place, the circulars, which are in the form of executive instructions, may supplement such Rules, but not supplant them. No circulars or guidelines can be issued, which may be repugnant to the Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. As per the Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India with regard to appointment, promotion and the transfer of ministerial staff of Education Department, for each division, a Divisional Level Committee has been constituted which is headed by the Regional Deputy Director of Education of the said division. 4. There appears to be ample material to suggest that in response to the advertisement issued in the daily newspaper. Aaj in the month of July, 1989, the writ petitioner applied and he was asked to appear for typing test and after successfully passing the typing test, he faced the interview and was finally appointed by the Regional Deputy Director of Education. The appointment was on ad hoc basis, but from that no inference can be drawn that his appointment was illegal. The appointment was on ad hoc basis, but from that no inference can be drawn that his appointment was illegal. As a matter of fact, an Establishment Committee approved the petitioners appointment on 3rd March, 1992, although subsequently the appointment was cancelled. The order of cancellation was set aside by the Director, Secondary Education, Bihar and pursuant thereto he joined his post. 5. We, thus, find that the consideration of the matter by the Single Judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity justifying interference by us in appeal. 6. LPA is dismissed in limine. 7. Upon dismissal of appeal, the application for interim relief being I.A. No. 5543/2008 also stands dismissed.