JUDGEMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. B. D. Das, learned Senior counsel, appearing for the petitioners in WP(C) 440/2017 and WP(C) 1830/2017, and Mr. S. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) 350/2017. Also heard Mr. A. Deka, learned Standing counsel, Education (Secondary) Department, appearing for the State respondents. 2. The challenge in WP(C) 1830/2017 is to Clause (4) of an Office Memorandum dated 14.07.2016, issued by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education (Secondary) Department. Prayer is also made to accept the candidature of the petitioners in terms of various advertisements for filling up the posts of Graduate Teacher in various High/High Secondary Schools, to which the petitioners had responded. 3. Same is the prayer made in WP(C) 440/2017. 4. In WP(C) 350/2017 also there is a prayer for setting aside Clause (4) of the aforesaid Office Memorandum dated 14.07.2016. Further prayer is made by the petitioner for setting aside the advertisement dated 13.01.2017 issued for the purpose of appointment of Graduate Teachers in Hindi. 5. As the basic challenge in all these three writ petitions is mounted on the legality and validity of Clause (4) of the Office Memorandum dated 14.07.2016, it is considered appropriate to extract the same, at the very outset, for a better appreciation. The same reads as under: “(4) No candidate is allowed to apply in Bengali/Hindi/Assamese medium schools if the candidate does not have MIL in Bengali, Hindi and Assamese, respectively, in the HSLC Examination, as the case may be. Only candidates having Bengali, Hindi and Assamese as MIL in HSLC Examination are allowed for applying in the Schools which are imparting education in Bengali, Hindi and Assamese medium exclusively.” 6. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialisation) Service Rules, 2003 (for short “2003 Rules”), which is a rule regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised) Service, is relevant for the purpose of adjudication of these three writ petitions. 7. The 2003 Rules was made by the Governor of Assam in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Rule 10 of the 2003 Rules provides for academic and professional qualification. The same reads as under: “10. 7. The 2003 Rules was made by the Governor of Assam in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Rule 10 of the 2003 Rules provides for academic and professional qualification. The same reads as under: “10. Academic and professional qualification - The academic and professional qualification for direct recruitment shall be as in Schedule-II: Provided that in addition to such academic and professional qualifications mentioned in Schedule-II, for direct recruitment to the posts all candidates shall have to appear and pass in the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) conducted by the Government scoring a minimum of 60% marks in case of general category candidates and minimum of 55% marks in case of SC/ST/OBC/Physically handicapped candidates: Provided further that the conduct of Teachers Eligibility Test shall be an eligibility test and not test for recruitment for the posts of Teachers. Qualifying in the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) shall not entitle any person to claim appointment as a Teacher.” 8. It is not disputed by Mr. Deka that the petitioners fulfill the academic and professional qualification as required under Rule 10 read with Schedule-II of the 2003 Rules. 9. The petitioners in these three writ petitions do not fulfill the requirement of Clause (4) of the Office Memorandum dated 14.07.2016 as they do not have either Bengali, Hindi or Assamese language as Modern Indian Language (MIL) in their HSLC Examination. 10. Learned counsel for the parties submit that because of the interim orders passed by this Court, the petitioners had been permitted to appear in the interview, but at the same time, because of the restraint order passed by this Court, their results have not been declared. 11. Mr. Deka, learned Standing counsel, Education (Elementary) Department places reliance on paragraph 7 of the affidavit-in-opposition in WP(C) 440/2017, filed by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education (Secondary) Department, to contend that Clause (4) of the Office Memorandum dated 14.07.2016 has since been considerably relaxed. Paragraph 7 of the said affidavit reads as under: “7. 11. Mr. Deka, learned Standing counsel, Education (Elementary) Department places reliance on paragraph 7 of the affidavit-in-opposition in WP(C) 440/2017, filed by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education (Secondary) Department, to contend that Clause (4) of the Office Memorandum dated 14.07.2016 has since been considerably relaxed. Paragraph 7 of the said affidavit reads as under: “7. That in the meanwhile, the department has received several representations from individual and different association in respect of Clause 4 of the Office Memorandum and thereafter, the department has decided to relax the norms and issued two notifications dated 21.01.2017 allowing appointment of teachers of secondary schools even if the candidate has studied additional language as elective subject according to medium of instruction of that particular school. Further, if a candidate obtained one year diploma course in Assamese Language conducted by Assamese Sahitya Sabha, he/she may be considered for appointment as teacher in Assamese Medium schools.” 12. The question that arises for consideration is as to whether, when there is a set of Rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the State respondents can issue a memorandum, such as the the Office Memorandum dated 14.07.2016, laying down further eligibility conditions for recruitment in Clause (4) ? 13. In the case of Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board vs. Ranjodh Singh & Ors, reported in (2007) 2 SCC 491 , the Supreme Court had held that once the terms and conditions of service including the recruitment of employees are governed either by the statutory Rules or Rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, it must necessarily be held that any policy decision adopted by the State in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 162 of the Constitution of India would be illegal and without jurisdiction. 14. In Virender Singh Hooda vs. State Of Haryana, reported in (2004) 12 SCC 588 , it was held by the Supreme Court that if an executive instruction is contrary to Statutory Rules, the Rules will prevail and not the executive instructions. 15. It may be permissible for the State Government to issue a notification/memorandum covering a field which is not covered under statutory Rules or a Rule framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. 15. It may be permissible for the State Government to issue a notification/memorandum covering a field which is not covered under statutory Rules or a Rule framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. But such notification/memorandum cannot impose additional requirements over and above what is prescribed under the Rules or run contrary to the Rules. There is no manner of doubt that Clause (4) had incorporated eligibility conditions of recruitment which are beyond and contrary to what are mandated by Rule 10 read with Schedule-II of the 2003 Rules. 16. In view of the above discussion, Clause (4) of the Office Memorandum dated 14.07.2016, being in transgression of and in conflict with Rule 10 read with Schedule-II of the 2003 Rules, cannot be sustained and, therefore, Clause (4) of the Office Memorandum dated 14.07.2016 is struck down. It is immaterial that subsequently, by issuing notifications, the eligibility conditions prescribed in Clause (4) of the Office Memorandum dated 14.07.2016 were watered down. Even after the rigour of Clause (4) is relaxed, the conditions regarding the eligibility prescribed therein are beyond the ambit of Rule 10 read with Schedule-II of the 2003 Rules. 17. Resultantly, the writ petitions are allowed. 18. The respondents are directed to declare the results of the petitioners in respect of the advertisements in response to which they had submitted their candidature and, depending upon the result, to take such consequential steps as may be necessary. 19. No cost.