JUDGMENT : S.Manikumar, J. W.A.Nos.1312 and 1384 of 2019 arise out of a common order made in W.P.(C) No.39605 of 2018 and W.P.(C) No.16768 of 2015 dated 8.3.2019. In W.P.(C) No.39605 of 2018, Bahuleyan Charitable Foundation has sought for a writ, order or direction commanding to quash Exhibit-P9 communication to the extent it requires issuance of essentiality certificate from the Government. The petitioner therein has sought for a writ of mandamus directing Kerala University of Health Sciences ('University' for short) to issue affiliation to the petitioner's college for MPT (Neurology) course, as sought for in Exhibit-P2, for the academic year 2018-2019. The petitioner has also sought for a direction declaring that the insistence of essentiality certificate by the University in order to obtain affiliation for the new course as unconstitutional. 2. In W.P.(C) No.16768 of 2015, Bahuleyan Charitable Foundation has sought for a writ of mandamus directing the University, represented by the Registrar, to grant affiliation to the petitioner's college for MPT (Musculoskeletal and Sports). The petitioner therein has also sought for a writ of mandamus directing the State of Kerala, represented by the Secretary to the Government, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Thiruvananthapuram (respondent No.2 therein) to issue No Objection Certificate for Post Graduate course as requested through Exhibits-P2, P4 and P11. The prayers sought for in the above writ petitions were opposed by Government of Kerala, respondent No.2, by filing a common counter affidavit. 3. As both the writ petitions relate to a common cause of obtaining permission from the Government, to start Paramedical Courses in the State of Kerala, based on the recommendation of the Paramedical Council, Kerala, they were taken up together and adverting to the pleadings and submissions, by a common order dated 8.3.2019, a learned single Judge of this court, dismissed the writ petitions and at paragraph Nos.5-8 held thus: “5. There are no statutory regulations regulating qualification of Paramedical Technicians and also for registration of institutions imparting Paramedical courses. The State's power to legislate cannot be disputed in the light of Entry 25 in List III of Schedule 7 of the Constitution of India. It was also seen that the State made an attempt to bring a Legislation on the subject as early as in the year 2007. However, the bill lapsed. As seen from Government Order, G.O. (MS).No.73/2002/H&FWD, dated 21.3.2002, the Government constituted a Paramedical Council. It was also seen that the State made an attempt to bring a Legislation on the subject as early as in the year 2007. However, the bill lapsed. As seen from Government Order, G.O. (MS).No.73/2002/H&FWD, dated 21.3.2002, the Government constituted a Paramedical Council. The Council consists of Chairman and the members, who are Government officials. As seen from the above order, G.O.(MS).No.73/2002/H&FWD, Paramedical Council is the authority to recommend for issuance of Letter of Permission by the Government for Paramedical courses. It also refers prescription of fees for considering the applications for recognition. The Government by another order, G.O. (Rt).No.1595/2008/H&FWD, dated 30.4.2008, streamlined procedure for submitting application for Paramedical courses. Therefore, it is clear that without recommendation of Paramedical Council, the Government cannot issue Letter of Permission. 6. The University cannot grant affiliation without Letter of Permission issued by the Government on recommendation of the Paramedical Council. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioners cannot admit students without Letter of Permission by the Government. The admission of the students into the course is irregular. The Government will have to consider regularization of admissions. It is open for the Government to impose fine and regularize admission. 7. The request of the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.39605 of 2018 for increasing intake was rejected. The petitioner also challenges rejection. However, the petitioner admitted students without Letter of Permission and without permission from this Court. In such circumstances, it is for the Government to consider regularization of admissions. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner had argued that the reasoning in the order rejecting the request for increasing the intake is legally unsustainable. Even assuming that the reason is unsustainable, the petitioner has no matter of right to admit the students without the same being interfered by this Court. This results in a situation for directing the Government to consider regularization of admissions. 8. It is to be noted that a letter of permission was already issued to the writ petitioner in W.P.(C).No. 33045 of 2018. However, it seems that they have admitted students over and above the intake permitted by the Government. The next academic year onwards the petitioners cannot admit students to any of the Paramedical courses without Letter of Permission. 8. It is to be noted that a letter of permission was already issued to the writ petitioner in W.P.(C).No. 33045 of 2018. However, it seems that they have admitted students over and above the intake permitted by the Government. The next academic year onwards the petitioners cannot admit students to any of the Paramedical courses without Letter of Permission. If the time limit for applying for Letter of Permission is over for the next academic year, the petitioner shall be permitted to apply within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Government also should give publicity in regard to obtaining permission from the Government for admission to institutes offering Paramedical courses. Anyhow, the Universities shall not grant permission without Letter of Permission issued by the Government. The Government shall take appropriate decision on regularsing admission within a period of one month.” 4. Being aggrieved, instant W.A.Nos.1312 and 1384 of 2019 are filed. 5. W.A.No.1312 of 2019 is filed on the grounds that: “A. The appellant was conducting the course M.P.T. (Musculoskeletal and Sports) from 2015 onwards on the strength of the affiliation order granted by the University. The affiliation order was issued on the basis of the direction issued by this court. When application was filed for grant of affiliation in MPT (Neurology), both cases were clubbed. These two cases were clubbed with another case which will come under the purview of paramedical council. The learned Single Judge thereafter had clubbed all the cases and issued directions to approach the paramedical council, which is not the body in giving any form of approval for a Physiotherapy course. There are other colleges functioning in the State. They are providing bachelor as well as post graduate courses including School of Medical Sciences run by the Government. None of those institutions are functioning with the approval or permission of the paramedical council. They are all functioning independently with the affiliation of the University in the absence of a statutory prescription otherwise. Therefore, the direction given by the learned Single Judge is fundamentally on a wrong premise without deciphering the distinction between an allied medical science course and a paramedical course. Therefore, the judgment of the learned Single Judge is wrong and deserves to be set aside. Therefore, the direction given by the learned Single Judge is fundamentally on a wrong premise without deciphering the distinction between an allied medical science course and a paramedical course. Therefore, the judgment of the learned Single Judge is wrong and deserves to be set aside. B. Application to start the course by name MPT (Neurology) was given to the University, based on which inspection was conducted. It was found that the appellant had provided all the facilities. At that point of time, the University took the stand that the Government had to issue the letter of essentiality for starting the course and the same has not yet been received. The essentiality is another form of NOC, which was found to be unconstitutional by this court. However, the University and the Government insisted on that point and the learned Single Judge did not answer on that question. On the other hand, the learned Single Judge found that permission of the Paramedical Council is required, which in fact has no application in so far as Physiotherapy courses are concerned as it comes under a different scheme of education. The distinction between paramedical courses and medical allied science courses has not been considered or appreciated while issuing the direction by the learned Single Judge. Resultantly, after providing all the facilities, the appellant is disabled from commencing the course, which the learned Single Judge ought to have issued directions for the grant of affiliation. C. All other institutions are offering the Physiotherapy post graduate courses based on the affiliation granted by the University. No other institution is called upon to obtain permission from paramedical council. They are not required so as well. The same is not required as well because there is no Legislation in so far as Physiotherapy courses are concerned in the State of Kerala. They are under separate legislation in other States. In the absence of a legislation, the practice followed in the case of other institutions shall be followed in the case of the appellant as well. There is no justification in taking a different stand in so far as the appellant is concerned. It is arbitrary and discriminatory and as such which has not been considered by the learned Single Judge.” 6. There is no justification in taking a different stand in so far as the appellant is concerned. It is arbitrary and discriminatory and as such which has not been considered by the learned Single Judge.” 6. W.A.No.1384 of 2019 is filed on the grounds that: A. The appellant was conducting the course from 2015 onwards on the strength of the affiliation order granted by the University. The affiliation order was issued on the basis of the direction issued by this court. When application was filed for grant of affiliation in MPT (Neurology), both cases were clubbed. These two cases were clubbed with another case which will come under the purview of paramedical council. The learned Single Judge thereafter had clubbed all the cases and issued directions to approach the paramedical council, which is not the body in giving any form of approval for a Physiotherapy course. There are other colleges functioning in the State. They are providing bachelor as well as post graduate courses including School of Medical Sciences run by the Government. None of those institutions are functioning with the approval or permission of the paramedical council. They are all functioning independently with the affiliation of the University in the absence of a statutory prescription otherwise. Therefore, the direction given by the learned Single Judge is fundamentally on a wrong premise without deciphering the distinction between an allied medical science course and a paramedical course. Therefore, the judgment of the learned Single Judge is wrong and deserves to be set aside. B. The appellant is offering the course from 2015 onwards on the strength of the order of affiliation issued by the University. Persons who were admitted for the post graduate course had also completed their course and are employed within and outside the country. Two batches are still prosecuting their studies. However, nothing is indicated in the judgment regarding the continuance of the course making a fluid situation in so far the institution is concerned after providing all the facilities both infrastructural and instructional. As such, the judgment of the learned Single Judge requires interference warranting consequential directions for the continuance of the course in terms of the order of affiliation granted by the University.” 7. Heard Sri. George Poonthottam, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, and Sri.M.A.Asif, learned Special Government Pleader. 8. As such, the judgment of the learned Single Judge requires interference warranting consequential directions for the continuance of the course in terms of the order of affiliation granted by the University.” 7. Heard Sri. George Poonthottam, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, and Sri.M.A.Asif, learned Special Government Pleader. 8. Material on record discloses that the Government have issued orders in GO(MS) No.73/2002/H&FWD dated 21.3.2002, constituting Paramedical Council, Technical Committee and District Inspection Committee. The said Government Order reads thus : “GOVERNMENT OF KERALA ABSTRACT Health and Family Welfare Department -Starting of new Self Financing Paramedical Courses -Constitution of Paramedical Council, Technical Committee and District Inspection Committee – Orders Issued. HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (K) DEPARTMENT GO(MS)No.73/2002/H&FWD Dated, Thiruvananthapuram: 21/03/2002 Read: GO(Rt)No.2458/2001/H&FWD dated: 13/09/2001 order In response to the Government policy to open up medical education sector to the self financing institutions many institutions applied for sanction to start paramedical courses in the State. Out of 191 applications received, 97 applicants appeared before the Committee constituted as per the Government Order read above for scrutiny of the applications on 28/09/2001 (list appended). 2. At present there is no policy of guidelines/eligibility criteria governing proper administration of Para Medical Institutions in the State. It is therefore essential to have a specific policy, details of course, eligibility criteria, standards and some fee structure etc and to regulate and monitor by some authority to ensure quality of the institutions, courses and services rendered as per the policy guidelines. 3. Government after examining the matter in detail, are pleased to issue the following orders with immediate effect. A. Technical Committee with following members will be constituted for prescribing minimum requirements for issue of NOC for various Para Medical Courses. i. Director of Medical Education ii. Director of Health Services iii. Principal, Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram iv. Principal, Co-operative Medical College, Cochin v. Joint Secretary, Health & Family Welfare – Convener B. The Committee will submit their report within one month. Once the minimum standards are prescribed, actual site inspection will be done through a District Inspection Committee consisting of i. District Collector ii. RDO concerned iii. District Medical Officer(H) iv. The District Collector is authorised to co-opt one or two specialists also in the team C. A Para Medical Council for the State will be constituted consisting of the following members: i. Additional Chief Secretary Chairman ii. Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Member iii. RDO concerned iii. District Medical Officer(H) iv. The District Collector is authorised to co-opt one or two specialists also in the team C. A Para Medical Council for the State will be constituted consisting of the following members: i. Additional Chief Secretary Chairman ii. Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Member iii. Director of Medical Education Member iv. Director of Health Services Member v. Principal, Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram Member vi. Joint Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Secretary/Convener The powers and functions of the Para Medical Council would be identifying institutions with the required infrastructure, recommending recognition by Government, academic aspects such as prescribing syllabus, eligibility of admission, qualification of faculties, conducting of examinations, recognition of the courses by concerned universities, AICTE/UGC/IMC, prescribing uniform fee, structure to different courses etc. D. The inspection report of the District Inspection Committee will be scrutinized by the Para Medical Council and the courses will be sanctioned based on the recommendation of the Para Medical Council. E. An inspection fee of Rs.50,000/-per applicant will be collected to create a fund, which will be utilized for the functioning of council and other expenses connected with self-financing courses in health sector. The Para Medical Council Secretary will keep the above fund in nationalized bank and keep proper account for its expenditure. The said fund will be utilized for preparation of various project reports in Health Sector. F. The whole process of prescribing standards, site inspections, scrutiny of applications will be completed in a time bound manner and recommendations furnished to Government before 15/05/2002. (By Order of the Governor) N.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT.” 9. Government have issued orders in GO(Rt) No.1598/2008/H&FWD dated 30.4.2008, revising the guidelines issued for submitting applications for Paramedical Courses. The said Government Order reads thus: “GOVERNMENT OF KERALA ABSTRACT Health & Family Welfare Department -Paramedical Council-Procedure for submitting application for Paramedical courses-Guidelines revised–Orders Issued. HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (K) DEPARTMENT GO(Rt) No.1598/2008/H&FWD Dated, Thiruvananthapuram: 30/04/2008 Read: 1. GO(MS)No.73/2002/H&FWD dated: 21.03.2002. 2. Minutes of the Paramedical Council meeting held on 24.01.08 and 04.04.08. ORDER As per the Government order read above Paramedical Council was constituted for the administration of Paramedical institutions and to ensure quality of Paramedical courses in Self Financing Sector. A technical committee to prescribe minimum standards for starting Paramedical courses and a District Inspection team were also constituted. 2. Minutes of the Paramedical Council meeting held on 24.01.08 and 04.04.08. ORDER As per the Government order read above Paramedical Council was constituted for the administration of Paramedical institutions and to ensure quality of Paramedical courses in Self Financing Sector. A technical committee to prescribe minimum standards for starting Paramedical courses and a District Inspection team were also constituted. Government have been considering to streamline the procedural formalities for approval of new Paramedical courses and to prescribe uniform application format for applications for new courses. The Paramedical Council in its meeting held on 24.01.2008 and 04.04.2008 recommended Government to issue orders on uniform application format, time schedule for submitting application, application fee, District Inspection Team, starting of new Diploma in Health Inspector Course (DHIC) in Government sector, annual examination system and syllabus for Diploma in Health Inspector Course (DHIC). 2. Government have examined the case in detail and are pleased to issue the following orders in respect of the Paramedical courses being conducted by Director of Medical Education and Director of Health Services in Self Financing Sector. 1. Application for new Courses The following schedule of time is prescribed for submitting application for new courses in Self Financing Sector. 1. Notification April 5 2. Last date of submission of Application May 15 3. Verification of application May 16 to May 31 4. Inspection Report from DME/DHS 1st June to 15th August 5. Meeting of Paramedical Council and recommendation to Government 16th Aug to 15th Sept 6. Letter of Intent by Government 16th Sept to 15th Oct 7. Construction and Infrastructural 16th Oct to 15th Oct Next Year facilities by institutions (One year) 8. Inspection by Technical team 16th Oct to 15th Jan next year 9. Letter of Permission by Government 16th Jan to 15th March 10. Prospectus 16th March to 15th May 11. Admission Notification 20th May 12. Last Date of Application 10th June 13. Publication of Rank List 15th July 14. Counselling for admission 15th August 15. Starting of classes 15th September The model application and minimum standards shall be downloaded from the website “www.arogyakeralam.gov.in” till website for Paramedical Council is made operative. The application shall be accompanied by a Demand Draft for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) per course towards nonrefundable application fee, Branch, Thiruvananthapuram. On receipt of valid application the District Inspection tam with the following members will visit the institution. The application shall be accompanied by a Demand Draft for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) per course towards nonrefundable application fee, Branch, Thiruvananthapuram. On receipt of valid application the District Inspection tam with the following members will visit the institution. (1) District Medical Officer (Health)/Deputy Medical Officer (Health) (2) District Programme Manager, NRHM (3) One subject expert from DME/DHS The team will submit report to the Paramedical Council. The Paramedical Council will recommend to Government for considering Letter of Intent/NOC. 2. Annual Inspection Fee An annual inspection fee of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand Only) per course will be charged from the self financing institutions from the year 2008-09 for conducting annual inspection by the team of Director of Medical Education/Director of Health Services. The amount shall be remitted as Demand Draft drawn in favour of Secretary, Paramedical Council, payable at SBT, Main Branch, Thiruvananthapuram. 3. Collection Charge for Syllabus The new syllabus for the courses conducted by Director of Medical Education/Director of Health Services, will be supplied for Rs.50/-(Rupees Fifty Only) per course on production of Demand Draft drawn as mentioned above. The old syllabus will be supplied free of cost. 4. Starting of DHIC in Public Health Training Centre, Thiruvananthapuram From the year 2008-09, the Diploma in Health Inspector Course (DHIC) will be conducted in the Public Health Training Centre, Thiruvananthapuram by Director of Health Services, utilising the available infrastructural facilities and without creation of new posts. The existing syllabus for Diploma in Health Inspector Course (DHIC) will be modified including the subjects viz. Biomedical waste Management, geriatric health cancer detection, palliative care, non-communicable diseases, prevention of food adulteration, adolescent health, etc. The semester examination system for Diploma in Health Inspector Course (DHIC) will be dispensed with, from 2008-09 admission batch and annual exam will be conducted as in the case of diploma courses conducted by the Director of Medical Education. 5. The Director of Medical Education/Director of Health Services will take further action. (By Order of the Governor) T.E.MERCY BAI DEPUTY SECRETARY” 10. Request seems to have been made for announcement of seats of Paramedical degree and diploma courses in self financing colleges. 5. The Director of Medical Education/Director of Health Services will take further action. (By Order of the Governor) T.E.MERCY BAI DEPUTY SECRETARY” 10. Request seems to have been made for announcement of seats of Paramedical degree and diploma courses in self financing colleges. Considering the same, the Government have issued GO(Rt) No.195/2014/H&FWD dated 18.1.2014, which reads thus: “GOVERNMENT OF KERALA Abstract Health & Family Welfare Department – Medical Education Services – Fee on requests for enhancement of seats of Paramedical Degree and Diploma Courses in Self Financing Institutions – Notified – Orders issued. HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE (K) DEPARTMENT G.O.(Rt) No.195/2014/H&FWD Thiruvananthapuram, Dated 18/01/2014 Read: 1. G.O.(Rt) 1598/2008/H&FWD dated 30.04.2008 2. G.O (Rt) No.2379/13/H&FWD dated 04.07.2013 ORDER Guidelines regarding issuance of No Objection Certificate to commence paramedical courses in self financing sector was issued as per order read as first paper above. In the said order, institutions seeking No Objection Certificate have to permit non refundable application fee of Rs.50,000/-per course to Kerala Paramedical Council. No fee is levied for the issuance of Letter of Permission. Fee on requests for enhancement of seats is also not prescribed in the above order. Institutions who have obtained No Objection Certificate and Letter of Permission are requesting Government or Paramedical Council granted permission to increase the in take in various courses. 2. In the above circumstances, Government order that self financing institutions seeking increase in intake shall remit Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) per course as non-refundable inspection fee in the Government Medical College to which their applications for enhancement are forwarded for inspection by Government or Paramedical Council by way of Demand Draft drawn in favour of Principal concerned. 3. Government also order that on receipt of inspection fee, the Principal shall arrange inspection and forward report of inspection to Government/Kerala Paramedical Council through Director of Medical Education. 4. The Principals of concerned colleges shall keep a separate ledger account for the fee collected and the expenditure towards TA/DA for the faculty deployed for inspection on requests for enhancement of seats shall be met from the fee sol collected in the rate prescribed by Government vide order read as second paper above. 4. The Principals of concerned colleges shall keep a separate ledger account for the fee collected and the expenditure towards TA/DA for the faculty deployed for inspection on requests for enhancement of seats shall be met from the fee sol collected in the rate prescribed by Government vide order read as second paper above. (By Order of the Governor) DILIP KHAN.A DEPUTY SECRETARY To The Director of Medical Education, Thiruvananthapuram The Director of Health Services, Thiruvananthapuram The Registrar, Kerala University of Health Sciences, Thrissur The President, Self Financing Paramedical Management Association, West for Hospital Building, PB No.803, Thrissur 4 The President, Kerala State Self financing BPT College Managements Association, Gopinath Kartha Memorial Building, Ferry Road, Thevaara, Kochi. All Institutes conducting Paramedical Degree and Diploma courses (through DME) The Director, Information and Public Relations Department (for publishing) The Nodal Officer, www.keralaparamedicalcouncil.org (for publishing in website) The Health & Family Welfare (S, B and C) Department Stock File/Office Copy Forwarded/By Order, Section Officer” 11. From material on record, it could be deduced that though Government of Kerala have made an attempt to bring in an enactment – Kerala Paramedical Council Act, 2007, it did not fructify and thus, abovesaid Government Orders, hold the field. 12. Reading of above Government Orders makes it clear that an educational agency intending to start a Paramedical course, has to obtain a letter of permission from the Government and thereafter, approach the University for affiliation. Though the appellants have assailed the orders of writ court on various grounds, as stated supra, it is well known that approval or recognition or letter of permission is followed by affiliation and not the reverse. 13. In the case on hand, without getting the letter of permission from the Government, the appellant has started two post graduate courses i.e. MPT (Neurology) and MPT (Musculoskeletal and Sports) respectively and consequently sought for prayers, as stated supra. As rightly held by the writ court, in the absence of statutory provisions, regulating Paramedical technicians and for registering of institutions imparting Paramedical courses, in the light of Entry 25 in List III of Schedule 7 of the Constitution of India, State has got the power to legislate. At this juncture, reference can be made to Article 162 of the Constitution of India, which deals with the extent of executive power of State. Article 162 reads thus: “162. At this juncture, reference can be made to Article 162 of the Constitution of India, which deals with the extent of executive power of State. Article 162 reads thus: “162. Extent of executive power of State.-Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the executive power of a State shall extend to the matters with respect to which the Legislature of the State has power to make laws: Provided that in any matter with respect to which the Legislature of a State and Parliament have power to make laws, the executive power of the State shall be subject to, and limited by, the executive power expressly conferred by this Constitution or by any law made by Parliament upon the Union or authorities thereof.” 14. Reference can also be made to few decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court, dealing with the executive powers of the Government under Article 162. 15. In Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur and Others v. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1955 SC 549 and Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in (1982) 1 SCC 39 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held thus: “Article 162 of the Constitution, no doubt, provides that subject to the provisions of the Constitution, the executive power of a State shall extend to the matters upon which the legislature of the State has competence to legislate and are not confined to matters over which legislation has been already passed. It is also well settled that so long as the State Government does not go against the provisions of the Constitution or any law, the width and amplitude of its executive power under Article 162 cannot be circumscribed; and if there is no enactment covering a particular aspect, the Government could carry on the administration by issuing administrative directions or instructions, until the legislature makes a law in that behalf.” 16. In Accountant General, State of Madhya Pradesh v. S.K.Dubey reported in (2012) 4 SCC 578 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at paragraphs 30 to 33, held as follows: "30. In Accountant General, State of Madhya Pradesh v. S.K.Dubey reported in (2012) 4 SCC 578 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at paragraphs 30 to 33, held as follows: "30. The moot question that falls for determination in this appeal is: whether in the absence of any express rule in the State Rules, was it open to the State Government of Madhya Pradesh to have provided by way of an executive Order dated 5-4-2002 that the service rendered by the respondent as President of the State Commission would be counted as pensionable service? The incidental question is: whether such order is inconsistent with Section 16(2) or the State Rules? 31. Subject to the provisions of the Constitution, the executive power of a State extends to the matters with respect to which the legislature of the State has power to make laws. This is what is provided in Article 162 of the Constitution. In other words, the executive power of the State executive is coextensive with that of the State Legislature. 32. In Sant Ram Sharma [ AIR 1967 SC 1910 ] this Court negated the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant therein that in the absence of any statutory rules governing promotions to selection grade posts the Government cannot issue administrative instructions and such administrative instructions cannot impose any restrictions not found in the rules already framed. The Court stated: (AIR p. 1914, para 7) “7. … It is true that the Government cannot amend or supersede statutory rules by administrative instructions, but if the rules are silent on any particular point the Government can fill up the gaps and supplement the rules and issue instructions not inconsistent with the rules already framed.” The above legal position has been followed and reiterated by this Court time and again. 33. The Constitution Bench of this Court in Lalit Mohan Deb [ (1973) 3 SCC 862 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 272] said: (SCC p. 867, para 9) “9. It is true that there are no statutory rules regulating the selection of assistants to the selection grade. 33. The Constitution Bench of this Court in Lalit Mohan Deb [ (1973) 3 SCC 862 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 272] said: (SCC p. 867, para 9) “9. It is true that there are no statutory rules regulating the selection of assistants to the selection grade. But the absence of such rules is no bar to the administration giving instructions regarding promotion to the higher grade as long as such instructions are not inconsistent with any rule on the subject.” In the light of the decisions and discussion, we are of the view that there is no error in the order of the writ court warranting interference. Writ appeals are dismissed. No costs.