JUDGMENT Heard Sri Upendra Kumar Singh for the appellants, Sri R.N. Pandey learned standing counsel for the State respondents and Sri Dhananjay Pratap Singh for the respondent No. 2 ? Secretary Basic Shiksha Parishad. The challenge laid in this Special Appeal against the judgement rendered by the learned Single Judge has already been negatived by us in Special Appeal No. 485 of 2016 (Surya Pratap Singh and 9 others Vs. State of U.P. and others) decided on 11 August 2016. We may additionally note that a similar challenge with respect to the judgment of the learned Single Judge impugned herein came to be negatived on 4 August 2016 by a Division Bench of this Court which proceeded to dismiss Special Appeal No. 477 of 2016 with the following observations: - "We are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge after carefully examining the provisions of U.P. Basic Education Act and the executive powers vested in the State Government has specifically recorded that the State Government does exercise a supervisory power under the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 in the matter of fixing number of posts of Assistant Teachers in primary institutions and the directions issued by the State Government are binding upon the U.P. Basic Education Board as well as upon the local authority. We have carefully examined the judgment of the learned Single Judge on the issues and the statutory provisions, which have been taken note of therein, we do not find any infirmity in the conclusion so arrived at by the learned Single Judge. xxx xxx xxx It is then contended on behalf of the appellant-petitioners that the learned Single Judge was not justified treating the qualification on the date as 16th June, 2016 inasmuch as the Business Regulations, 1975 provides a detail procedure in the matter of issuance of the Government Order, which has not been adopted, while issuing the notification dated 16th June, 2016. We may record that the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Harpal Singh, Ram Nagina Singh, Shiv Ram Singh and Charu Tyagi vs. State of U.P. & Others reported in 2015 (3) AllLJ. We may record that the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Harpal Singh, Ram Nagina Singh, Shiv Ram Singh and Charu Tyagi vs. State of U.P. & Others reported in 2015 (3) AllLJ. 113 after detail consideration has held that even if a particular notification may not answer the description of Government Order, the same would constitute an Administrative Instruction and if the Administrative Instruction is only for the purposes of filling a gap in the statutory provisions for the period suitable amendments are made in the statutory provisions then such Administrative Instructions have to be carried out. Administrative Instruction/Communication will hold the field until the Government exercises its statutory powers of making amendments. For the aforesaid reasons, the second contention raised on behalf of the petitioner does not in any way impress upon this Court. xxx xxx xxx Admittedly, the result of BTC course examination of the appellant-petitioners has not been declared upto the cut off date and therefore, they were outside the zone of consideration in terms of the advertisement published. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any good reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge." No other grounds were pressed by the learned counsel for the appellants. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in the present Special Appeal which shall consequently stand dismissed.