Judgment : SANJAY KUMAR, J. The short question that falls for consideration in this batch of cases is whether Superintendents in the Judicial Ministerial Service who were originally appointed under the Andhra Pradesh Judicial Ministerial Service Rules, 1964, are required to possess the qualification of Graduation, prescribed under the Andhra Pradesh Judicial Ministerial Service Rules, 2003, to be promoted as Administrative Officers. Faced with conflicting administrative circulars issued in this regard by the High Court, ostensibly founded on its orders on the judicial side, a Division Bench comprising Ghulam Mohammed,J and one of us (SK,J) directed these matters to be placed before a Full/Larger Bench for resolving the issue. The Division Bench was of the opinion that conflicting views were expressed by different Benches resulting in contradictory administrative circulars which impacted the fate and future of not only the petitioners in these cases but also others similarly situated and that the imbroglio required to be resolved by a comprehensive and conclusive adjudication of the issue. The Judicial Ministerial Service in the State of Andhra Pradesh was initially governed by the Andhra Pradesh Judicial Ministerial Service Rules, 1964 (hereinafter, ‘the Rules of 1964’) framed under G.O.Ms.No.206, Home (Courts-A) Department, dated 17.02.1964. These Rules were framed in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Thereunder, various divisions and categories of posts constituted the service. The Rules prescribed the norms for making appointments to the enumerated posts. Rule 20 specified that no person would be eligible for appointment unless he possessed the qualifications specified for the post. For recruitment to the categories of posts in Division I in Hyderabad City and those specified in Division IV in the mofussil Courts, the required minimum general educational qualification was that prescribed in the Schedule to the General Rules for the time being in force. For recruitment to the categories of posts in Division I in Hyderabad City and those specified in Division IV in the mofussil Courts, the required minimum general educational qualification was that prescribed in the Schedule to the General Rules for the time being in force. As per Rule 12 of the General Rules in the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1962 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1962’), the minimum general educational qualification meant the qualification prescribed in the Schedule but under the proviso it was stipulated that a person who had appeared for the SSC (X Class) public examination held by the Board of Secondary Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, and had been declared eligible for admission to the Intermediate courses of study was eligible for appointment to a post in any State or Subordinate Service for which the minimum general educational qualification prescribed in the Schedule was specified as the qualification for appointment. The Rules of 1962 were superseded by the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996. Rule 12(ii) of these Rules states that the minimum general educational qualification shall be that prescribed in Schedule-II. Schedule-II postulates that a candidate possesses the minimum general educational qualification if he passes one of the examinations mentioned thereunder. The Secondary School Certificate Examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, finds mention at Sl.No.1. In effect, a person with SSC qualification was eligible under the Rules of 1964 to be appointed to the service. Thereafter, for promotion to the next higher category/division, an appointee had to pass the departmental test/examination prescribed in the Table appended to Rule 23. The Rules of 1964 were repealed by the Andhra Pradesh Judicial Ministerial Service Rules, 2003 (hereinafter, ‘the Rules of 2003’) framed in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, vide G.O.Ms.No.129, Law (L.A. & J-Home-Courts-D) Department, dated 12.11.2003. These Rules came into effect from 05.12.2003 and brought about a sea change in the mode and method of making appointments to the various posts in the service. Structural modifications led to changes in nomenclature and the clubbing of posts under different categories. These Rules came into effect from 05.12.2003 and brought about a sea change in the mode and method of making appointments to the various posts in the service. Structural modifications led to changes in nomenclature and the clubbing of posts under different categories. Rule 8 however reiterates that no person would be eligible for appointment to the different categories of posts unless he possesses the qualifications specified in the entry corresponding to the concerned post in Annexure-I. The minimum educational qualification prescribed in Annexure-I for appointment to the posts of Junior Assistant/ Personal Assistant/Typist/Examiner/Copyist/Field Assistant is a pass in the Intermediate examination conducted by the Andhra Pradesh State Board of Intermediate Education or any other equivalent examination. Promotion to the posts of Senior Assistants is envisaged from the categories of Junior Assistants/Personal Assistants/Typists. For such promotion, the incumbent has to pass the Civil Judicial Test Parts I & II, Criminal Judicial Test and the Accounts Test for Subordinate Officers Part-I. Senior Assistants could, in turn, aspire for promotion to the posts of Superintendents upon passing translation tests. At the pinnacle is the post of Administrative Officer, to be filled by promotion from the category of Superintendents subject to the incumbent possessing the qualification of Graduation. Pertinent to note, under the Rules of 1964 though preference was to be given to Law Graduates and thereafter to Graduates, possession of Graduation as a qualification was not essential for ascension up the hierarchical ladder. The Rules of 2003, on the other hand, make it clear that in so far as the post of Administrative Officer is concerned, Graduation is a must. The Rule itself being clear and unambiguous, Note-2 appended to Annexure-I plays the nigger in the woodpile and is the genesis for the present litigation. Note-2 reads as under: “A person appointed to a post in accordance with the rules applicable to him at the time of his appointment shall not be required to acquire higher qualifications prescribed for that post subsequent to his appointment.” The plain meaning of Note-2 in the context of the cases on hand is that a person appointed to a particular post under the Rules of 1964 is not required to acquire the higher qualification prescribed for the said post under the Rules of 2003. It may be noticed that under the Rules of 1964, the minimum educational qualification for entry into the service through various specified posts was SSC whereas the minimum educational qualification under the Rules of 2003 for posts such as Junior Assistant, Personal Assistant, etc., was enhanced to a pass in Intermediate examination. Applying Note-2, those who had been appointed as Junior Assistants/Personal Assistants/Typists/Examiners/Copyists/Field Assistants under the Rules of 1964 with only SSC qualification were exempted from possessing a pass in Intermediate examination, the minimum qualification prescribed for those posts under the Rules of 2003. Note-2 fell for consideration before a Division Bench comprising two of us (GR,J and SK,J) in W.P.No.11450 of 2005. The petitioners therein, all possessing a pass in SSC examination, were appointed as Lower Division Clerks (Junior Assistants) under the Rules of 1964. For promotion to the posts of Senior Assistants under the Rules of 2003, candidates are required to pass the stipulated departmental tests. The qualification of a pass in Intermediate examination is not separately prescribed for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant. In the light of Rule 8 read with Note-2 and the qualifications prescribed for promotion as a Senior Assistant in Annexure-I, the Division Bench opined that as the petitioners therein lawfully continued to be Junior Assistants in the service by virtue of the exemption under Note-2, they would be eligible for promotion as Senior Assistants once they passed the required departmental tests, notwithstanding the fact that they did not possess a pass in Intermediate examination. The writ petition was accordingly allowed holding that they were entitled to be considered for promotion as Senior Assistants if they were otherwise qualified even though they did not possess Intermediate qualification. Applying the same analogy another learned Division Bench allowed W.P.No.470 of 2009 by order dated 20.01.2009. That was a case where the petitioner had entered the service under the Rules of 1964 without Intermediate qualification. He was promoted as a Senior Assistant before the advent of the Rules of 2003. He was however denied further promotion to the post of Superintendent on the ground that he did not possess a pass in Intermediate examination. Pertinent to note, under the Rules of 2003, there is no stipulation of a minimum educational qualification of a pass in Intermediate examination for promotion to the post of Superintendent. He was however denied further promotion to the post of Superintendent on the ground that he did not possess a pass in Intermediate examination. Pertinent to note, under the Rules of 2003, there is no stipulation of a minimum educational qualification of a pass in Intermediate examination for promotion to the post of Superintendent. To that extent, promotion of appointees under the Rules of 1964 with SSC qualification to the post of Superintendent stood on par with promotion to the post of a Senior Assistant. However, the learned Division Bench while deliberating the issue formulated the question that arose in the following terms: “The only question that arises for consideration is as to whether new Rules apply for those who are already holding posts under the old Rules.” Given the limited exemption posited by Note-2 to Annexure-I of the Rules of 2003, read with Rule 8 thereof, the question framed by the learned Division Bench was, with due respect, perhaps too wide and sweeping in its ambit. However, on facts the Bench was correct in holding that the petitioner therein was eligible to be considered for further promotion to the post of Superintendent as his initial entry into the service with a lesser qualification than a pass in Intermediate examination was protected under Note-2. As long as a higher educational qualification was not prescribed under the Rules of 2003 for his promotion to the higher post, he could not be lawfully denied on that ground. Then came W.P.No.4067 of 2009 which was decided by the same learned Division Bench which dealt with W.P.No.470 of 2009. This was a case where a Junior Assistant appointed under the Rules of 1964 was denied promotion as a Senior Assistant on the ground that he did not possess a pass in Intermediate examination. Applying the law laid down in W.P.No.11450 of 2005 and W.P.No.470 of 2009, the Division Bench disposed of the writ petition by its Judgment dated 02.03.2009 directing consideration of the case of the petitioner for promotion in the light of the earlier precedents. The same learned Division Bench had occasion to again deal with the issue in W.P.No.5072 of 2009. This was a case involving a Senior Assistant who was initially appointed under the Rules of 1964 with the qualification of SSC. The same learned Division Bench had occasion to again deal with the issue in W.P.No.5072 of 2009. This was a case involving a Senior Assistant who was initially appointed under the Rules of 1964 with the qualification of SSC. He was denied promotion to the post of Superintendent under the Rules of 2003 on the ground that he did not pass Intermediate examination. The case was therefore identical to W.P.No.470 of 2009. However, reliance was sought to be placed by the respondents on the High Court’s Circular in ROC No.285 & 1696/2004-C.I(1) dated 10.03.2005 to justify their action. By this circular, the High Court had rejected the representation of the employees working in East Godavari District, appointed prior to the Rules of 2003, whereby they requested that they should be exempted from acquiring the higher qualifications prescribed under the Rules of 2003 for future promotions. In that context, the High Court also rejected the letter of the District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, whereby he sought instructions as to whether employees holding SSC qualification could be considered for appointment by promotion to higher categories. Dealing with this circular, the learned Division Bench observed thus: “We have perused the said order. We are of the opinion that there was no requirement of exemption of higher qualification in respect of the candidates who have been appointed under the Rules of 1964 for their promotion under Rules of 2003, if they have possessed required qualification as per Rules 1964. Under Rules 1964 holding of SSC qualification alone is required whereas under Rules 2003 pass in departmental tests is additionally required for promotion. Therefore, the order of the High Court is quite contrary to the Rules and the aforesaid Judgments of this Court.” Stating so, the learned Division Bench directed the High Court to issue a fresh circular and communicate the same to the Unit Heads to consider the cases of eligible candidates for promotion to various categories in accordance with the Judgments of this Court. Pausing here for a moment, it would be relevant to note that none of the cases cited supradealt with the post of an Administrative Officer. The observations made and the law laid down in the aforestated Judgments were in the context of promotion to the posts of Senior Assistants and Superintendents, which rank below the post of Administrative Officer. Pausing here for a moment, it would be relevant to note that none of the cases cited supradealt with the post of an Administrative Officer. The observations made and the law laid down in the aforestated Judgments were in the context of promotion to the posts of Senior Assistants and Superintendents, which rank below the post of Administrative Officer. The judgments hold good as regards these posts because the Rules of 2003 only prescribe departmental tests as the required qualifications for promotion to these posts and the minimum educational qualification of a pass in Intermediate examination finds no mention in connection therewith. This minimum educational qualification is stipulated as the essential qualification only for entry into the initial level posts of Junior Assistant, Personal Assistant, etc. Those who had already gained appointment to such posts under the Rules of 1964 with the lesser qualification of SSC were exempted from fulfilling this minimum educational qualification to continue in the service under the Rules of 2003 by virtue of Note-2 appended to Annexure-I. Basing on the direction in W.P.No.5072 of 2009, the High Court issued a Circular in ROC No.725/2009-C.1 dated 01.05.2009. This circular rightly summed up the position as under: “Therefore, all the Unit Heads are directed to follow the directions of the Hon’ble High Court issued in the aforesaid writ petitions scrupulously while effecting promotions to the category of posts upto Superintendent as specified in APJMS Rules 2003, to the employees who were appointed under the erstwhile Rules 1964.” Had it stopped here, there would have been no difficulty. Surprisingly, the High Court then issued another Circular in ROC No.725/2009-C.1 dated 12.08.2009 purportedly in continuation of its earlier circular dated 01.05.2009. Therein, all Unit Heads were directed to follow the directions of the High Court in W.P.Nos.11450 of 2005, 470, 4067 and 5072 of 2009 scrupulously while effecting promotions to the posts of Administrative Officers also as specified in APJMS Rules, 2003 to the employees who were appointed under the erstwhile Rules, 1964. There is no explanation forthcoming, be it in the circular itself or in the counters filed by the High Court in this batch of cases, as to what prompted the High Court to come up with these additional instructions which went beyond the scope of the Judgments cited. There is no explanation forthcoming, be it in the circular itself or in the counters filed by the High Court in this batch of cases, as to what prompted the High Court to come up with these additional instructions which went beyond the scope of the Judgments cited. None of the Judgments referred to in this circular dealt with the post of Administrative Officer and no directions were issued therein with regard to that post. It is on the basis of this circular that the petitioners in this batch of cases, and others similarly situated, came to be promoted as Administrative Officers though they did not possess the requisite qualification of Graduation prescribed under the Rules of 2003. Aggrieved by two such promotions effected in Adilabad District, a qualified but overlooked Superintendent in the service filed W.P.No.8412 of 2011 before this Court. The thrust of his attack was that the promotees did not possess the qualification of Graduation required under the Rules of 2003 but notwithstanding the same, they were selected and appointed. The Principal District & Sessions Judge, Adilabad, justified his action by placing reliance on the circular dated 12.08.2009 issued by the High Court. A learned Division Bench of this Court comprising one of us (GR,J) and P.Durga Prasad,J examined the Judgment in W.P.No.5072 of 2009 and opined that there was nothing therein or in Note-2 to Annexure-I to the Rules of 2003, which rendered eligible a person who did not have Graduation for appointment to the post of Administrative Officer after the said Rules came into force. The Bench further observed that none of the earlier Judgments stated so nor did the circular instructions enjoin so. The promotions of the two unqualified Superintendents were therefore held to be unsustainable and were accordingly set aside. Pursuant to this Judgment, the High Court again issued a Circular in ROC No.1981/2011-C-1 dated 13.09.2011 directing all the Unit Heads to go through the observations made in the Judgment in W.P.No.8412 of 2011 before conducting the selection process to the posts of Administrative Officers and to take proper care and caution in effecting promotions to the posts in Category-I (Administrative Officer). Pursuant to the above development, the promotions granted to the petitioners before us also came to be reviewed and as they did not fulfill the required educational eligibility criteria, they were reverted as Superintendents. Hence, these writ petitions. Pursuant to the above development, the promotions granted to the petitioners before us also came to be reviewed and as they did not fulfill the required educational eligibility criteria, they were reverted as Superintendents. Hence, these writ petitions. Be it under the Rules of 1964 (Rule 20) or the Rules of 2003 (Rule 8), the mandate requires that a person should be eligible for appointment to the concerned post in terms of possessing the requisite prescribed qualification. An appointment made in violation of the mandatory provisions of the statute and in particular, ignoring the minimum educational qualification and other essential qualification, would be wholly illegal [A.UMARANI v. REGISTRAR, COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES (2004) 7 SCC 112 and M.P.STATE COOP. BANK LTD., BHOPAL v. NANURAM YADAV (2007) 8 SCC 264 ]. The only relaxation provided in the Rules of 2003 is that enunciated in Note-2 to Annexure-I read with Rule 8. Thereby, those who had earlier entered the service with a lesser qualification but in conformity with the rules extant are not required to acquire the higher qualification prescribed thereafter for the said post. In the scheme of the Rules of 2003, the minimum educational qualification of Intermediate is prescribed only for the initial level posts of Junior Assistants/Personal Assistants/Typists/ Examiners/Copyists/Field Assistants and no such prescription finds mention for the promotion posts of Senior Assistants and Superintendents. As a person who entered the service under the Rules of 1964 as a Junior Assistant or in any of the other initial categories mentioned supra,with the qualification of SSC required under those Rules, is exempted from acquiring a pass in Intermediate examination for continuing in that post and as he is only required to pass the prescribed departmental tests for promotion to the posts of Senior Assistant and thereafter, Superintendent, this Court held so in its Judgments in W.P.Nos.11450 of 2005, 470, 4067 and 5072 of 2009. The proper and correct understanding of this legal position led to the issuance of the circular dated 01.05.2009. However for reasons unexplained, the High Court on the administrative side came up with the additional circular dated 12.08.2009, extending the directions in the aforestated Judgments to promotions to the posts of Administrative Officers also. As rightly pointed out by the learned Division Bench in W.P.No.8412 of 2011, this was not the import of the earlier Judgments. However for reasons unexplained, the High Court on the administrative side came up with the additional circular dated 12.08.2009, extending the directions in the aforestated Judgments to promotions to the posts of Administrative Officers also. As rightly pointed out by the learned Division Bench in W.P.No.8412 of 2011, this was not the import of the earlier Judgments. The observations made in W.P.No.5072 of 2009 to the effect that there was no requirement of exemption of higher qualification in respect of candidates who had been appointed under the Rules of 1964 for promotion under the Rules of 2003, if they possessed the required qualifications as per the Rules of 1964, necessarily had to be read and understood in the context of the facts obtaining in the said case. Merely because the language used was general in nature, it did not have the effect of overriding or diluting the eligibility requirements mandated by the Rules. Trite to state, observations of the Courts are neither to be read as Euclid’s theorems nor as provisions of the statute, and that too, taken out of their context. Observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for Judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes; their words are not to be interpreted as statutes. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases [UNION OF INDIA v. MAJOR BAHADUR SINGH (2006) 1 SCC 368 ]. The learned Division Bench, recognizing this aspect in W.P.No.8412 of 2011, pointed out that there was nothing in the Judgment in W.P.No.5072 of 2009 that undermined the legal position obtaining under the Rules of 2003 with regard to the educational eligibility required for promotion to the post of Administrative Officer. It is unfortunate that the High Court on the administrative side misconstrued the Judgment in W.P.No.5072 of 2009 to mean that those appointed under the Rules of 1964 did not have to fulfill the eligibility requirement prescribed under the Rules of 2003 even for promotion to the post of Administrative Officer. It is unfortunate that the High Court on the administrative side misconstrued the Judgment in W.P.No.5072 of 2009 to mean that those appointed under the Rules of 1964 did not have to fulfill the eligibility requirement prescribed under the Rules of 2003 even for promotion to the post of Administrative Officer. That was not the import or intendment of Note-2 to Annexure-I read with Rule 8 of the Rules of 2003 or the Judgments rendered by this Court in connection with the lower posts. The High Court’s Circular in ROC No.725/2009-C.1 dated 12.08.2009 and the promotions granted thereunder were therefore in flagrant violation of the Rules of 2003. In consequence, the reversions visited upon the petitioners pursuant to the later Judgment in W.P.No.8412 of 2011 and in keeping with the subsequent circular dated 13.09.2011 cannot be said to be illegal or unsustainable. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners mounted an additional attack against the reversions visited on their clients. It is their case that the Rules of 2003 were amended by the Government of Andhra Pradesh under G.O.Ms.No.50, Law (LA & J-Home-Courts.D) Department, dated 23.04.2009, whereby the requirement of Graduation qualification for promotion to the post of Administrative Officer has been deleted and an incumbent is only required to put in three years of service as a Senior Sheristadar or Superintendent to aspire for such promotion. They assert that G.O.Ms.No.50 dated 23.04.2009 was promulgated in consultation with the High Court and was accepted and acted upon by it. In the light of this development, they contend that their clients are not liable to be reverted on the ground that they do not possess the required educational qualification. Attractive at first blush, this argument is essentially without merit. G.O.Ms.No.50 dated 23.04.2009 was purportedly issued for implementing the recommendations of the Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Jagannath Shetty Commissionin respect of employees of the subordinate Courts. Pertinent to note, the Commission considered the Rules of 1964 only as its Report was submitted long prior to the advent of the Rules of 2003. The recommendations of the Commission with regard to the staff structure in the Judicial Ministerial Service in our State have not been placed before us but for the reasons to be stated hereinafter it may not be necessary for us to go into that aspect of the matter. The recommendations of the Commission with regard to the staff structure in the Judicial Ministerial Service in our State have not been placed before us but for the reasons to be stated hereinafter it may not be necessary for us to go into that aspect of the matter. G.O.Ms.No.50 dated 23.04.2009 refers to the letters dated 27.10.2004 and 06.12.2007 addressed by the Registrar General of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh but the body of the G.O. indicates that the Registrar General, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, merely requested implementation of the recommendations of the Commission. There is therefore no indication that there was any consultation with the High Court before the Government promulgated the G.O. What is however of crucial significance is that the Rules governing the Judicial Ministerial Service in the State, be it the Rules of 1964 or the Rules of 2003, were framed in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. G.O.Ms.No.50 dated 23.04.2009 is not. On the face of it, this G.O. embodies only administrative instructions issued by the Secretary to the Government, Legislative Affairs and Justice. The question is whether by way of such instructions the Government of Andhra Pradesh could have meddled with the Rules of 2003. The G.O. reads to the effect that the Government, after careful consideration of the recommendations of the Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Jagannath Shetty Commission, issued the orders contained therein in addition to and to the extent of modifying the existing Rules of 2003 as indicated thereunder and except in the matters as covered in those amendments, the provisions of the Rules of 2003 shall continue to apply. There can therefore be no doubt that the G.O. purports to override the Rules of 2003 to the extent of any repugnancy or inconsistency. Administrative or executive instructions issued by the State can supplement the Rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution as such Rules may not deal with every aspect of the matter. However, if there is a conflict between such instructions and the Rules, the Rules would invariably prevail [UNION OF INDIA v. SOMASUNDARAM VISWANATH (1989) 1 SCC 175 ; PALURU RAMKRISHNAIAH v. UNION OF INDIA (1989) 2 SCC 541 : R.S.AJARA v. STATE OF GUJARAT (1997) 3 SCC 641 and K.H.SIRAJ v. HIGH COURT OF KERALA (2006) 6 SCC 395 ]. However, if there is a conflict between such instructions and the Rules, the Rules would invariably prevail [UNION OF INDIA v. SOMASUNDARAM VISWANATH (1989) 1 SCC 175 ; PALURU RAMKRISHNAIAH v. UNION OF INDIA (1989) 2 SCC 541 : R.S.AJARA v. STATE OF GUJARAT (1997) 3 SCC 641 and K.H.SIRAJ v. HIGH COURT OF KERALA (2006) 6 SCC 395 ]. In SANT RAM SHARMA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AIR 1967 SC 1910 , a Constitution Bench observed that while it was true that the Government could not amend or supersede statutory rules by way of administrative instructions, if the rules framed in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India were silent on any particular point, the Government could fill up the gap and supplement the rules and issue instructions not inconsistent with the rules already framed. This principle was reiterated and applied by the Supreme Court in its later decisions in GUMAN SINGH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (1971) 2 SCC 452 Constitution Bench;LALIT MOHAN DEB v. UNION OF INDIA (1973) 3 SCC 862 and AMARJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA (DR) v. STATE OF PUNJAB (1975) 3 SCC 503 . In P.D.AGGARWAL v. STATE OF U.P. (1987) 3 SCC 622 , the Supreme Court held on the facts obtaining therein that the office memorandum issued by the State of U.P. purporting to amend the U.P. Service of Engineers (Buildings and Roads) Class II Rules, 1936 was nothing but an administrative order or instruction and as such, it could not amend or supersede the statutory rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. In K.KUPPUSAMY v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU (1998) 8 SCC 469 ,the Supreme Court observed: “……… The relevant rules, it is admitted, were framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. They are statutory rules. Statutory rules cannot be overridden by executive orders or executive practice. Merely because the Government had taken a decision to amend the rules does not mean that the rule stood obliterated. Till the rule is amended, the rule applies. Even today the amendment has not been effected. As and when it is effected ordinarily it would be prospective in nature unless expressly or by necessary implication found to be retrospective. Merely because the Government had taken a decision to amend the rules does not mean that the rule stood obliterated. Till the rule is amended, the rule applies. Even today the amendment has not been effected. As and when it is effected ordinarily it would be prospective in nature unless expressly or by necessary implication found to be retrospective. The Tribunal was, therefore, wrong in ignoring the rule.” It is thus not sufficient for the Government of Andhra Pradesh to merely entertain the desire to modify or amend the Rules of 2003 framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. Unless the said amendment is effected as per proper procedure, it can have no consequence. The legal principle that an administrative act must yield to a statute is no longer res integra. Once a regulation has been framed, in terms of the provisions of the General Clauses Act, the same must be amended in accordance with the procedures laid down under the principal enactment. Even assuming that the Central Government had the jurisdiction to direct the authority to amend the Regulations, it was required to be carried out in accordance with law, and, thus all requisite procedures laid down therefor were required to be fulfilled [A.MANOHARAN v. UNION OF INDIA (2008) 3 SCC 641 ]. Mere administrative/executive instructions would therefore not have the effect of overriding the statutory Rules. Viewed thus, G.O.Ms.No.50 dated 23.04.2009 obviously cannot have the effect of modifying, amending or overriding the Rules of 2003 in so far as the eligibility requirements prescribed therein are concerned. It may well be true that the said G.O. has been accepted and acted upon with regard to other aspects by the High Court on the administrative side but that, by itself, would not vest this invalid administrative exercise with legality or impunity. There can be no estoppel against law. The argument of the learned counsel that this G.O. must be given primacy and precedence over the Rules of 2003 must therefore fail. In the result, we hold that the Rules of 2003 require that a person promoted to the post of Administrative Officer from the category of Superintendent, after the advent of the said Rules, must possess the qualification of Graduation, irrespective of whether he entered the service under the Rules of 1964 or under the Rules of 2003. In the result, we hold that the Rules of 2003 require that a person promoted to the post of Administrative Officer from the category of Superintendent, after the advent of the said Rules, must possess the qualification of Graduation, irrespective of whether he entered the service under the Rules of 1964 or under the Rules of 2003. The Circular in ROC No.725/2009-C.1 dated 12.08.2009 issued by the High Court indicating to the contrary is accordingly set aside and the Circular in ROC No.1981/2011-C-1 dated 13.09.2011 is upheld. Consequently, the reversion of the petitioners in this batch of cases from the posts of Administrative Officeron the ground that they do not possess Graduation qualification is unassailable. The Writ Petitions are accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances, without any order as to costs.