JUDGMENT/ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. A.K. Rokhum, Addl. Advocate General. 2. The petitioners have challenged the creation of 1 (one) post of Director General, Mizoram Home Guards, in the Grade Pay of Rs. 9,500/-, exclusively as the duty post of Super-time Scale Mizoram Police Service, to the exclusion of other Group A Officers, recruited to the Mizoram Home Guards Organization. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the State of Mizoram enacted the Mizoram Home Guards Act, 1985 to provide for the constitution of a Volunteer Organization, known as the Home Guards. 4. Section 3 (3) of the Mizoram Home Guards Act, 1985, herein after referred to as the 1985 Act states that the general supervision and control of Home Guards shall vest in the Commandant General, who shall be appointed by the Government. The Grade Pay of the Commandant General is Rs. 8,700/-. However, vide the impugned Order dated 27.08.2014, issued by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, Home Department, 1 (one) post of Director General, Mizoram Home Guards, in the Grade Pay of Rs. 9,500/- has been created for the duty post of Super-time Scale of the Mizoram Police Service. 5. The petitioners counsel submits that the Grade pay of the newly created post of Director General, Mizoram Home Guards is higher than the Grade Pay of the Commandant General. He submits that the State respondents have decided to appoint a person to the post of Director General from amongst a Mizoram Police Service Officer, over and above the Commandant General, which would be in violation of the 1985 Act. He submits that executive instructions cannot override the provisions of a Statutory Act. 6. The petitioners counsel submits that as per the Recruitment Rules pertaining to different posts under the Mizoram Home Guards, there are educational and others qualification required for holding such posts. However, no such educational qualification or other qualifications has been provided by the Government for filling up the post of the newly created Director Generals post. The petitioners counsel submits that there being no post of Director General, in the 1985 Act, no person can be appointed to the said newly created post as it would be in violation of the 1985 Act. Accordingly, he prays that the impugned Order dated 27.08.2014 should be set aside. 7. Mr. The petitioners counsel submits that there being no post of Director General, in the 1985 Act, no person can be appointed to the said newly created post as it would be in violation of the 1985 Act. Accordingly, he prays that the impugned Order dated 27.08.2014 should be set aside. 7. Mr. A.K. Rokhum, Addl. Advocate General submits that the creation of the post of Director General is a policy decision of the State Government and the same should be upheld. He also submits that as per the Model Forms of Home Guards Acts and Rules circulated by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, namely, Compendium of Instructions, 2007, the Director General of Home Guard-cum-Civil Defence is the topmost rank in the Home Guards Organisation. He also submits that in the neighbouring States of Assam and others like Bihar, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab etc, the Director General of Home Guards and Civil Defence is the topmost post in the Home Guards organisation. He thus submits that the State of Mizoram has the power to make rules and to create the post of Director General. 8. He also submits that the State respondents were in the process of making amendments to the Mizoram Police Service Rules, 2008 to enable a Senior Administrative Grade, MPS to be promoted to the post of Director General, Mizoram Home Guards. 9. Mr. A.K. Rokhum also submits that the nomenclature of the Mizoram Home Guards Organisation has been changed and it is now called the Mizoram Home Guards & Civil Defence Department. 10. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 11. Section 3 (3) of the 1985 Act states as follows : "3. (3) The general supervision and control of Home Guards throughout the Union territory shall vest in the Commandant General who shall be appointed by the Government and in any such Additional Commandants General, Deputy Commandants General or Assistants Commandant General as the Government may deem fit to appoint." 12. As per the order dated 08.12.1989, issued by the Financial Commissioner, Government of Mizoram, the Commandant General, Mizoram Home Guards has been included as Head of Department under Rule 3 (f) of the DFP Rules, 1978 and under S.R. 2 (10) of F.Rs and S.Rs. As per the order dated 08.12.1989, issued by the Financial Commissioner, Government of Mizoram, the Commandant General, Mizoram Home Guards has been included as Head of Department under Rule 3 (f) of the DFP Rules, 1978 and under S.R. 2 (10) of F.Rs and S.Rs. Vide Notification No. G.17012/5/93-F. Est/59 dated 21.10.1993, issued by the Financial Commissioner, Government of Mizoram, the Commandant General of Mizoram Home Guards is shown to be the Head of Department under Rule 3 (f) of the Delegation of Financial Powers Rules, 1978. 13. Thus, a conjoint reading of Section 3 (3) of the 1985 Act, the Order dated 08.12.1989 and Notification dated 21.10.1993 goes to show that the Commandant General, Mizoram Home Guards is the Head of the Department of the Mizoram Home Guards and the control and supervision of the Home Guards rests with the Commandant General. 14. There is no provision in the 1985 Act providing for the supervision and control of the Mizoram Home Guards under the Director General. Accordingly, the State respondents cannot appoint any person to the post of Director General, to have general supervision and control of the Mizoram Home Guards, over and above the Commandant General. Though the respondents Government have stated in paragraph 6 of the additional affidavit-in-opposition that as per the Recruitment Rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution, i.e., the Mizoram Home Guards Group A post Recruitment Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as 1990 Recruitment Rules), the Director General of Home Guards is the highest ranking and topmost post for controlling the administration of the Mizoram Home Guards organisation, this Court finds that the above said 1990 Recruitment Rules pertains to the post of Commandant General and not to the post of Director General. The State Government no doubt has the power to enact statutory Acts and Rules for the purpose of supervision and control of Home Guards, including creation of posts. However, the same has to be done in accordance with the Acts and Rules in force. In the alternative, the State Government will have to make amendments to the existing Act and Rules in force or to make new Acts and Rules. 15. However, the same has to be done in accordance with the Acts and Rules in force. In the alternative, the State Government will have to make amendments to the existing Act and Rules in force or to make new Acts and Rules. 15. In view of the above, though the State has the power to create the post of Director General, the State Government cannot create a post which has a higher authority than the Commandant General for general supervision and control of the Mizoram Home Guards, in contravention of the Mizoram Home Guard Act, 1985 and without amending the 1985 Act. 16. In the case of Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board vs. Ranjodh Singh and Others, reported in (2007) 2 SCC 491 , the Apex Court has held that executive instructions cannot prevail over statutory rules. Accordingly, the State respondents cannot appoint a person as Director General, having more powers of supervision and control under the Mizoram Home Guard on the basis of the impugned Order dated 27.08.2014, in the absence of any Rules and any such provision in the 1985 Act. 17. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the above observations. 18. Any interim order passed earlier stands vacated.