Judgment :- This judgement shall dispose of the following writ petitions, viz., as common question of law and facts are involved in these writ petitions. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are being taken from W.P.No.7587 of 2007. 2. The petitioner is a Graduate in Science with Chemistry as main subject. He has passed his B.Sc Degree Examination and thereafter, was appointed as Analytical Chemist in a Private Pharmaceuticals Firm. The petitioner was thereafter selected as Junior Analyst in Drugs Testing Laboratory under the control of the 2nd respondent, through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in the year 1986. In the year 1987, the petitioner was appointed as Junior Analyst in Drugs Testing Laboratory, Chennai. 3. The next channel of promotion is by way of appointment to the post of Drugs Inspector by transfer. In the seniority list of Junior Analysts, the name of the petitioner appeared at Sl.No.13. 4. The Government vide G.O.Ms.No.302 dated 18.6.1997 issued a panel declaring thirteen (13) persons to be eligible for promotion as “Drug Inspectors”. The persons shown in the list, were those who had degree of B. Pharm. 5. The name of the petitioner, and other similarly situated employees were omitted in the list, on the ground of want of qualification to hold the post of Drug Inspector. 6. It is the submission of the petitioner that prior to the amendment of Rules in October 1993, the petitioner and similarly placed persons were entitled to be appointed by promotion to the post of Drug Inspectors. It is submitted that the amendment made to the rule in October 1993 did not take note of the persons like the petitioner who were working as Junior Analysts since 1987. 7. It was for this reason that Notification was issued vide G.O.Ms.No.708 dated 11.11.1995 providing avenue of promotion by transfer to the post of Drug Inspector. 8. The Government Order was not given effect to, therefore, some of the Analysts who were covered under G.O.Ms. No.708 dated 11.11.1995 filed Original Applications in O.A. Nos. 4478 and 3382 of 1998 before the learned Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, for a direction to the respondents to pass orders on the representations filed by the applicants in those applications. 9. 8. The Government Order was not given effect to, therefore, some of the Analysts who were covered under G.O.Ms. No.708 dated 11.11.1995 filed Original Applications in O.A. Nos. 4478 and 3382 of 1998 before the learned Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, for a direction to the respondents to pass orders on the representations filed by the applicants in those applications. 9. It was in pursuance to the direction issued by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the Government declared the petitioner as eligible for promotion to the post of Drug Inspector, and subsequently petitioner was promoted as Drug Inspector on 17.12.1998. 10. The B. Pharm Degree holders challenged the Government Order, in promoting the petitioner and other ineligible persons to the post of Drug Inspectors, in violation of statutory rules. 11. The Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal stayed the operation of the order of promotion. It was in compliance of the order passed by the learned Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, that the impugned order was passed cancelling the order of promotion of the petitioner. 12. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order, has approached this Court to challenge the impugned order, on the ground, that the order cannot be sustained as it has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice, as no notice was issued before ordering cancellation of promotion. 13. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is the outcome of the misreading of the order passed by the Tribunal, as G.O.Ms.No.680 dated 17.12.1998 was not stayed by the Tribunal. 14. On consideration, I find no force in this writ petition. Admittedly, the appointment of the petitioner as Drug Inspector was challenged to be violative of statutory rules, which prescribe that no person can be notified to be Drug Inspector, unless he fulfills the qualification laid under the Rules. 15. In view of the statutory rules, it was not open to the Government to issue instructions contrary to the rules to promote the persons without requisite qualification. It is well settled Law that excessive instructions cannot override statutory rules. The petitioner therefore cannot claim right of promotion under G.O.Ms.No.680 dated 17.12.1998, in view of statutory bar under the rules. 16. In view of the statutory rules, it was not open to the Government to issue instructions contrary to the rules to promote the persons without requisite qualification. It is well settled Law that excessive instructions cannot override statutory rules. The petitioner therefore cannot claim right of promotion under G.O.Ms.No.680 dated 17.12.1998, in view of statutory bar under the rules. 16. Otherwise also, the impugned order has been passed in compliance of the interim order passed by the Tribunal, therefore, no notice was required to be issued before cancelling order of promotion to the petitioner. 17. This Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction also cannot pass order, which will result in reviving an illegal order of promotion as admittedly in view of the statutory rules framed under Drugs and Cosmetic Rules, the persons not having requisite qualification cannot be appointed to the post of Drug Inspector. 18. Finding no merit, all the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.