Judgment Tarun Argarwala, J. The moot question for consideration in these special appeals is whether the Uttaranchal Government Servants (Criterion For Recruitment By Promotion) Rules 2004 (hereinafter referred as Rules of 2004) or the Police Act, 1861 is applicable while considering the writ petitioners for promotion. The factual controversy in all these appeals are slightly different and, therefore, it would be appropriate, if the factual background is disclosed in a nutshell. 2. The writ petitioners (Thakur Singh & others) in Special Appeal NO.138 of 2006 were working as Sub Inspector in the civil police for the last 22 to 25 years. A notification dated 23.09.2004 was issued by the State Government for promotion to the post of Inspector in the Uttaranchal Police. On 12th December, 2004, a promotion list was published, in which the name of the said writ petitioners were not found. It is alleged that juniors to the writ petitioners were promoted. Being aggrieved, the writ petitioners made a representation and when nothing was done in the matter, the writ petitioners filed Writ Petition (S/S) NO.1615/2004 praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to promote the writ petitioners to the post of Inspector by following the Rules of 2004 w.e.f. the date when juniors to the writ petitioners were promoted. The contention raised in the said writ petition was that the Rules of 2004 was applicable, which provides for recruitment by promotion on the basis of seniority subject to the rejection of the unfit and that the said Rules had an overriding effect and, consequently, the Police Act, 1861, the rules framed therein as well as the regulations and orders issued from time to time were not applicable. On the other hand, the State Government took a stand that the Police Act, 1861 was applicable and that the Rules of 2004 was not applicable and that the notification dated 05th November, 1965 issued by the State Government under the Police Act, 1861, which provides for, promotion on the basis of merit, was applicable to the case of the writ petitioners. 3. 3. The learned Single Judge while considering the matter held that the Rules of 2004 was applicable and, in view of the fact that the Rules of 2004 had an overriding effect over the Government Order dated 05.11.1965, the learned Single Judge, consequently, directed the State Government to consider the writ petitioners for promotion to the rank of Inspector under the Rules of 2004 and, if found eligible for promotion to promote them w.e.f. the date when the juniors were promoted. The State Government, being aggrieved by the said judgment has filed the aforesaid Special Appeal NO.138 of 2006. 4. In Special Appeal NO.85 of 2008, the writ petitioners (Girish Chandra Pant & others) were working as Head Constable in the Provincial Armed Constabulary (hereinafter referred as PA.C.) for the last 19 to 26 years and contended that they were liable to be promoted as Sub Inspector on the basis of seniority subject to the rejection of the unfit. The writ petitioners contended that there was no provision for a written test and since no rules were framed under Section 2 or under Section 46(2)( c) of the Police Act providing for a written test for promotion from Head Constable to the post of Sub Inspector, the executive instructions issued by the Additional Director General of Police (A.D.G.P.) dated 14.11.2007 as well as the consequential order dated 17.11.2007 issued by respondent nO.3 i.e. the Commandant, was wholly without jurisdiction and was liable to be quashed. The basic contention of the writ petitioners was that the Rules of 2004 was applicable and that the Police Act was not applicable. The stand of the State Government was that the Police Act was applicable and that the Rules of 2004 was not applicable. 5. The learned Single Judge, after considering the matter, found that no Rules had been framed under the Police Act for promotion of Head Constable to the post of Sub Inspector. The learned Single Judge found that the Rules of 2004, framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, were applicable and that the executive instructions issued by the A. D. G. P. dated 14.11.2007 and the consequential order issued by the Commandant dated 17.11.2007, being administrative instructions, could not override the Rules of 2004. The learned Single Judge found that the Rules of 2004, framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, were applicable and that the executive instructions issued by the A. D. G. P. dated 14.11.2007 and the consequential order issued by the Commandant dated 17.11.2007, being administrative instructions, could not override the Rules of 2004. The learned Single Judge, consequently, quashed the orders dated 14.11.2007 and 17.11.2007 and directed the respondents to promote the writ petitioners from Head Constable to the post of Sub Inspector in accordance with law after following the provisions incorporated in the Rules of 2004. 6. The State Government, being aggrieved, filed a review application disclosing that the Government had issued an order dated 19.05.1998 under the Police Act, providing guidelines for the selection on the post of Sub Inspector in civil police and platoon commander in PAC. and, based on the said Government Order, the UP. Police Board had issued a Circular dated 22.03.1999 laying down the procedural guidelines for selection of departmental candidates to the post of Sub Inspector (Armed Police and Platoon Commander in PAC.). In the review application, it was further stated that the case, i.e., Thakur Singh Adtiikari Vs. State of Uttaranchal, 2006 (1) U.D. 425, on which the learned Single Judge had placed reliance, had been stayed by the Division Bench in an intra-court appeal. The State Government, consequently, submitted that in view of the fact that a Government Order had already been issued under the Police Act for promotion to the post of Sub Inspector, the Rules of 2004 was not applicable and that the said judgment was liable to be reviewed. The contention of the State Government that the Rules had been framed under the Police Act, which were applicable to the writ petitioners, was rejected by the learned Single Judge and the review application was disposed of accordingly. The State Government, being aggrieved by the said order of the learned Single Judge, has filed the Special Appeal No.85 of 2008. 7. In Special Appeal NO.70 of 2008, the appellants were promoted from Head Constable to the post of Sub Inspector in PAC. after qualifying the written examination conducted pursuant to the executive instructions dated 14.11.2007 and 17.11.2007. The State Government, being aggrieved by the said order of the learned Single Judge, has filed the Special Appeal No.85 of 2008. 7. In Special Appeal NO.70 of 2008, the appellants were promoted from Head Constable to the post of Sub Inspector in PAC. after qualifying the written examination conducted pursuant to the executive instructions dated 14.11.2007 and 17.11.2007. The said appellants sought leave to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge dated 22.04.2008 passed in Writ Petition (S/S) NO.34 of 2008 contending that the Police Act was applicable and based on the Government Orders issued under the said Act, the writ petitioners qualified in the written examination and were selected as Sub Inspector. The appellants contended that the learned Single Judge without hearing them has held that the Rules of 2004 was applicable and consequently, their selection as Sub Inspector based on the Government Order framed under the Police Act was, now sought to be cancelled. The appellate court entertained the Special Appeal and gave leave to challenge the said judgment. 8. In Writ Petition No.99 of 2008 (S/S), the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the order / circular dated 14.11.2007 issued by Addl. Director General of Police (Admn. & Personnel), Uttarakhand Police Headquarter, Dehradun. 9. Since the issues arising in all these appeals are interconnected, the same are being decided together. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 10. The learned Advocate General submitted that the Polite Act is a special Act and occupies the field with regard to the recruitment and promotion in the police force and that the Rules of 2004 is only the general law, which is not applicable. The learned Advocate General submitted that for promotion from Sub Inspector to the post of Inspector in the civil police, the Government Order dated 05.11.1965 was applicable and that for promotion from Head Constable to Sub Inspector in P.A.C. the Government Order dated 19.05.1998 and the circular of the U.P. Police Board dated 22.03.1999 was applicable. The learned Advocate General submitted that the aforesaid Government Orders were issued by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 2 read with Section 46 (2)(c) of the Police Act. The learned Advocate General further contended that the learned Single Judge committed an error in relying upon the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of State of U.P. & others Vs. The learned Advocate General further contended that the learned Single Judge committed an error in relying upon the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of State of U.P. & others Vs. Shakuntla Shukla 1999 (3) U.P.L.B.E.C.1702, which has been over-ruled by the Supreme Court in the case of Chandra Prakash Tiwari & others Vs. Shakuntala Shukla & others 2002 (6) SCC 127. 11. On the other hand, Shri B. S. Adhikari, the learned counsel for the writ petitioners in Special Appeal NO.138 of 2006 contended that the Rules of 2004 was not applicable and that the Government Order dated 05.11.1965 has been repealed and, in any case, the decision of the Supreme Court in Chandra Prakash Tiwari (supra) was clearly distinguishable. Shri Shobhit Saharia, the learned counsel for the respondents (Girish Chandra Pant & others) in Special NO.85 of 2008 contended that the Rules of 2004 was applicable and that the Police Act was not applicable in view of Rule 2 of the Rules of 2004, which had an overriding effect. He further submitted that assuming without admitting the Police Act was applicable, no rules were framed under the said Act for promotion from Head Constable to the post of Sub Inspector and that no promotion could be made on the basis of executive instructions dated 14.11.2007 and 17.11.2007 nor could the A.D.G.P. frame rules relating to promotion since the power to frame such rules was only with the State Government as provided under Section 2 and Section 14(2)(c). The learned counsel further made a submission that even assuming that the Government Order dated 22.03.1999 was applicable, nonetheless, the instructions issued by the A.D.G.P. dated 14.11.2007 was contradictory and in excess of the said guidelines issued by the Government Order dated 19.05.1998 and therefore, the instructions issued by the A.D.G.P. was liable to be quashed. 12. The answer to the issue raised in these appeals, in our opinion, is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Chandra Prakash Tiwari (supra). 12. The answer to the issue raised in these appeals, in our opinion, is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Chandra Prakash Tiwari (supra). The issue involved in the said case was whether the promotion from Sub Inspector to Inspector in the State of U. P., in the year 1997, was to be made on the basis of seniority subject to the rejection of unfit as provided in the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants (Criteria for Recruitment by Promotion Rules, 1994) framed under Article 309 of the Constitution or on the basis of merit as provided in the Government Order dated 05.11.1965. The High Court of Allahabad held that the criteria for selection was seniority subject to the rejection of the unfit as laid down in the Rules of 1994. The Supreme Court after careful analysis of the provisions of Police Act, the rules and the regulations framed therein and after considering the Rules of 1994 framed under Article 309 of the Constitution held that the promotion was required to be made as per the Government Order dated 05.11.1965 issued under the Police Act and that the Rules of 1994 framed under Article 309 of the Constitution was not applicable. The Supreme Court in the case of Chandra Prakash Tiwari (supra) has held as follows:"24. ....................... As a matter of fact, a perusal of the provisions of the Act, in particular that of Section 46, makes it abundantly clear that the statute (the Police Act) ought to be treated as a complete code by itself - there is thus a special statute concerning the police force and within its fold are included the appointment, dismissal, placement and all other steps required to reorganise the police and make it a more efficient instrument for the prevention and detection of crime. Administrative instructions have admittedly been in use since the beginning of the formation of a separate cadre of police in Uttar Pradesh. " "29. ......................... that while the State Legislature passed the Act of 1994 but by reason of the provisions of a special statute, namely, the Police Act, read with the authorisation contained therein to frame rules by way of executive orders, the Government of Uttar Pradesh obviously did not in fact intend to apply the general law to all and sundry. " "36. that while the State Legislature passed the Act of 1994 but by reason of the provisions of a special statute, namely, the Police Act, read with the authorisation contained therein to frame rules by way of executive orders, the Government of Uttar Pradesh obviously did not in fact intend to apply the general law to all and sundry. " "36. On a conspectus of the whole issue, it is thus difficult to comprehend that the General Rules framed under Article 309 should or would also govern the existing special rules concerning the Police Rules. Admittedly, the guidelines as contained in the government order dated 5-11-1965 have been under and in terms of the provisions of the Police Act. There is special conferment of power for framing of rules dealt with more fully hereinbefore, which would prevail over any other rule. Since no other rule stands formulated and the government order of 1965 being taken as the existing rule pertaining to the subject-matter presently under consideration with recent guidelines as noted above, its applicability cannot be doubted. Unless the General Rules specifically repeal the effectiveness of the special rules, question of the latter rules becoming ineffective or inoperative would not arise. In order to be effective, an express mention is required rather than an imaginary repeal. It is now a well-settled principle of law for which no dilation is further required that law courts are rather/oath to repeal by implication. The General Rules framed under Article 309 have been for all State Government officials on and since 1994." "37. Police force, admittedly, has a special significance in the administration of the State and the intent of the framers of our Constitution to empower the State Government to make rules therefor has its due significance rather than being governed under a general omnibus rule framed under the provisions under Article 309. When there is a specific provision unless there is a specific repeal of the existing law, question of an implied repeal would not arise. ............................." 13. From the aforesaid, it is clear that the Supreme Court has categorically held that the Police Act, the rules and the regulations framed therein would apply and that the Rules of 1994 will not apply with regard to the promotion from one cadre to another in the police force. ............................." 13. From the aforesaid, it is clear that the Supreme Court has categorically held that the Police Act, the rules and the regulations framed therein would apply and that the Rules of 1994 will not apply with regard to the promotion from one cadre to another in the police force. The Rules of 1994 issued by the State Government of Uttar Pradesh is parimateria to the Rules of 2004 framed by the State of Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand). Consequently, the principle of law and the issue decided by the Supreme Court in the matter of Chandra Prakash Tiwari (supra) is clearly applicable to the issue involved in the present case. 14. In view of the aforesaid, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the Government Order dated 05.11.1965 issued under the Police Act is applicable to the case of the writ petitioners in Writ Petition (S/S) NO.1615/2004 and that the Rules of 2004 issued by the Government of Uttarakhand under Article 309 of the Constitution of India is not applicable. In the light of the aforesaid, the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 31 st March, 2006 passed in Writ Petition (S/S) No.1615/2004 cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. The Special Appeal No.138/2006 is consequently allowed. 15. The learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Shobhit Saharia submitted that even assuming that the Police Act was applicable, the executive instructions issued by the ADGP dated 14.11.2007 cannot be sustained since such rules relating-to promotion' could only be made by the State Government under Section 2 read with Section 46(2)(c) of the Police Act. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is patently misconceived. The State Government in their review application had filed a Government Order dated 19.05.1998 as well as the circular dated 22.03.1999 issued by the U.P. Police Board which laid down the guidelines for the selection on the post of Sub-Inspector from departmental candidates in P.A.C. A perusal of this Government Order clearly indicates that it was issued by the State Government under Section 2 read with Section 46(2)(c) of the Police Act. In the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Chandra Prakash Tiwari (supra) the same principle would apply and since the Government Order was issued under the Police Act, which is a special Act and which covers the field, the general rule issued under Article 309 would not be applicable. 16. No doubt, executive instructions cannot run contrary to the statutory provisions. The executive instructions / circulars, which has no force of law, cannot prevail over the statutory rules. Even by necessary implication, the guidelines cannot be framed or laid down by executive instructions in addition to what is prescribed under the rules. An authority, unless a power is conferred on it expressly, cannot exercise a statutory power. The aforesaid proposition has been clearly propounded by the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions, namely, Ganpati Singhji Vs. State of Ajmer & another AIR 1955 se 188, Fonseca Private Ltd. & others Vs. L. e. Gupta & others 1973 (1) see 480, Sukhdev Singh & others Vs. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi & another 1975 (1) see 421, Dr. Krushna Chandra Sahu & others Vs. State of Orissa & others 1995 (6) see 1 and General Manager, Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan Vs. Laxmi Devi & others 2009 (7) see 205. However, the Court finds that the aforesaid judgments cited by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners are not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case. 17. This Court further finds that the executive instructions issued by the AD.GP. dated 14.11.2007 is in consonance with the Government Order dated 19.05.1998 and; consequently, the said executive instructions are in conformity with the Government Order dated 19.05.1998 and the Circular dated 22.03.1999. These executive instructions only clarifies the Government Order dated 19.05.1998. Consequently, the submission of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the instructions issued by the ADGP dated 14.11.2007 are contradictory to the guidelines issued by the Government Order dated 19.05.1998 and circular dated 22.03.1999 is patently erroneous. 18. There is another aspect, which requires consideration Le. Rule 2 of the Rules of 2004. For facility, the said Rule is extracted below:"2. Overriding effect - These rules shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other Service rules made by the Governor under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution or Orders for the time being in force." 19. Rule 2 of the Rules of 2004. For facility, the said Rule is extracted below:"2. Overriding effect - These rules shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other Service rules made by the Governor under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution or Orders for the time being in force." 19. It has been contended in view of Rule 2, the provisions of the Rules 2004 would have an overriding effect over the Police Act, the rules and the regulations framed therein. The submission of the learned counsel for the opposite parties, though attractive in the first flush, is patently misconceived and cannot be accepted. A perusal of the said rule would indicate that the Rules of 2004 will override other service rules made by the Governor under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution or orders. In the present case, we find that the Government Order had been issued by the State Government under Section 2 read with Section 46(2) of the Police Act. The said Government Order has not been issued under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. In view of the aforesaid, Rule 2 of the Rules of 2004 has no application whatsoever. 20. In the light of the aforesaid, the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 22nd April, 2008 and 3rd June, 2008 passed in Writ Petition NO.34/2008 (S/S) cannot be sustained and are quashed. Special Appeal NO.lO/2008 and 85/2008 are allowed. Consequently, the Writ Petition NO.99 of 2008 (S/S) is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case parties shall bear their own cost.