JUDGMENT By the Court.—This case is listed peremptorily today and there are two counsels in the matter appearing for petitioners, whose names are shown in the cause list. We are informed that cases of one of the counsel for petitioners, Sri H.S. Jain, are adjourned but adjournment does not apply to the cases which are listed peremptorily. The reason as to why other counsel has not appeared is not communicated to us. Hence we find no reason to adjourn the matter and proceed to decide the matter after perusal of record and hearing Sri M.M. Pandey, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Sri Raj Baksh Singh, Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Sri Q.H. Rizvi, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for respondents. 2. Record shows that petitioner-2 has died and petitioner-1 was dismissed from service, hence an application for impleadment has been filed by one Rajendra Kumar Tripathi, who is not a legal heir of petitioner-2. Writ petition has not been either in representative capacity or as public interest litigation. Applicant seeking impleadment has separate cause of action of his own, therefore, he has no right to be impleaded in place of petitioner-2 (after his death). Impleadment Application is accordingly rejected. 3. So far as the writ petition is concerned, petitioners had prayed for a declaration that Police Force (Restriction of Rights) Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1966”) does not prohibits Members of U.P. Police Force to form a Service Association and such an Association can be formed in view of U.P. (Recognition of Service Associations) Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 1979”). 4. Validity of Act, 1966 has been upheld by Apex Court in Delhi Police Non-Gazetted Karmachari Sangh and others v. Union of India and others, (1987) 1 SCC 115 . 5. Police Force is governed by Police Act, 1861 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1861”) and Rules, 1979 have been framed under proviso to Article 309 of Constitution. Since Police Force is governed by Act, 1861, therefore Rules framed under proviso to Article 309 as such are not applicable particularly when a separate Statute has been made restricting right to form Association in Police Force. 6. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla, AIR 2002 SC 2322 , similar controversy arose before Supreme Court. Since Police Force is governed by Act, 1861, therefore Rules framed under proviso to Article 309 as such are not applicable particularly when a separate Statute has been made restricting right to form Association in Police Force. 6. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla, AIR 2002 SC 2322 , similar controversy arose before Supreme Court. While considering the above question in reference to U.P. Government Servants (Criterion for Recruitment by Promotion) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 1994”) framed under proviso to Article 309 qua Government Order dated 5.11.1965 issued under Section 2 of Act, 1861 it held that Rules framed under proviso to Article 309 would not apply since the field is covered by the statutory order issued under Section 2 of Act, 1861. It may be noticed that before Apex Court not even a Rule framed under Act, 1861 was under consideration but only a Government Order dated 5.11.1965 referable to Section 2 of Act, 1861 was up for consideration and the question was whether such Government Order would prevail over Rules framed under proviso to Article 309. In that context, Court answered the question upholding superiority of statutory order issued under Section 2 of Act, 1861 and declined to give superiority to Rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. 7. This has been followed and reiterated by a Full Bench of this Court in State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Home and others v. Rajendra Singh Anr., 2015(4) ADJ 575 (FB)(LB). 8. In view of above, Rules, 1979 are not applicable to Police Force and reference thereto is thoroughly misconceived. 9. The writ petition lacks merits. Dismissed.