ORDER : 1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition assailing the order dated 24-4-2018 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Commissioner, Surguja Division, Ambikapur, in Panchayat Appeal No. 13-b/121/2017-2018 by which the appeal of the petitioner against rejection of representation by Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat Jashpur dated 09.04.2018 for appointment on the post of Teacher (Panchayat) (English) has been rejected. 2. The brief facts as reflected from the record are that the District Panchayat Jashpur has conducted proceedings for appointment on the post of Teacher (Panchayat) vide advertisement dated 28.07.2016. The petitioner applied for Lecturer (English). The CEO after verification of the records has prepared the merit list directing calling for verification of the records. The petitioner being woman and belongs to Scheduled Caste as such the CEO has called six candidates for verification in 2X3 ratios. The name of the petitioner is at serial No. 3 and vide memo dated 07.11.2016 she was directed for verification of records and appeared on 16.11.2006. 3. After verification the CEO District Pancahyat Jashpur has issued order for appointment on 10.03.2017 and 29.04.2017 wherein the name of the petitioner Sangeeta Suryavanshi is at serial No. 3 in the waiting list. The selected candidate Saroj was directed to report for joining upto 12.05.2017 but she has not joined. Therefore, the petitioner requested for considering her case, but it was not considered. Therefore, she has filed writ petition No. 2916/2017 before this Court which was disposed off by this Court on 28.06.2017 directing the respondent No. 2 to consider the representation of the petitioner which was rejected by the CEO vide its order dated 09.02.2018 on the count that as per executive instruction issued by the Secretary Panchayat all the appointments on the post of lecture should be completed up to 30.04.2017 and thereafter no appointment should be made. Against that order the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Commissioner Ambikapur which was rejected by the impugned order dated 24.04.2018. Both these orders are being assailed in this petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per clause No. 4 of the advertisement the mode of appointment will be as per the Chhattisgarh Teacher (Panchayat) Cadre (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2012. Both these orders are being assailed in this petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per clause No. 4 of the advertisement the mode of appointment will be as per the Chhattisgarh Teacher (Panchayat) Cadre (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2012. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per Rules of 2012 which have been framed by the State exercising the power conferred under Sections 53(1), 70(1) and 95(1) of the Chhattisgarh Panchyat Raj Adhinium, 1993. Rule 6(f)(x) provides that entire selection list together with the waiting list shall be valid for one year after declaration of the examination result and new posts sanctioned or posts lying vacant because of any reason during this period may be filled by this waiting list and would submit that selection list was declared on 10.03.2017 and 29.04.2017 (Annexure P/3 and P/4) therefore, as per the Rule the validity of selection list should be for one year which expired on 09.03.2018 or 28.04.2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the selected candidates No. 1 and 2 have not reported for duty, therefore, the petitioner’s name who is at serial No. 3 in the waiting list should have been considered for appointment. When the petitioner applied for consideration of her appointment, the same was rejected by the Chief Executive Officer on 6-9-2017 (Annexure P/9) on the count that the Government of Chhattisgarh has issued a circular dated 20-4-2017, according to which the waiting list was made effective upto 30-4-2017, thereafter no appointment could be carried out from the waiting list candidates in view of the waiting list. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2/Chief Executive Officer would submit that they have specifically followed the circular issued by the Government of Chhattisgarh, as such claim of the petitioner has rightly been rejected by them. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. The point to be determined by this court is whether the Rules framed by the State in its statutory powers will prevail or the executive instructions issued by the Secretary to carry out the selection process. To better understanding the lis between the parties, it is expedient to for this Court to reproduce the relevant rules which are as under: 8. To better understanding the lis between the parties, it is expedient to for this Court to reproduce the relevant rules which are as under: 8. The relevant Rule 7(f)(x) of the Rules 2012 is abstracted below: “7(f) Procedure for examination for selection - If the State Government issues any order/instruction for competitive examination (for selection) as mentioned in sub-rule (d) above then the procedure for such examination shall be as follows: (i) xxx xxx xxx (ii) xxx xxx xxx (iii) xxx xxx xxx (iv) xxx xxx xxx (v) xxx xxx xxx (vi) xxx xxx xxx (vii) xxx xxx xxx (viii) xxx xxx xxx (ix) xxx xxx xxx (x) The entire selection list together with the waiting list shall be valid for one year after the declaration of the examination result and new posts sanctioned or posts lying vacant because of any reason during this period may be filled by this waiting list.” 9. From bare perusal of the aforesaid rule as well as advertisement issued by the respondent No. 2 particularly clause 4 which provides that mode or recruitment will be as per Rules of 2012, it is quite vivid that selection list and waiting list will be valid for one year. Therefore, life period of a select list cannot be curtailed by executive instruction dated 20.04.2017. Therefore, life period of a select list cannot be curtailed by executive instruction dated 20.04.2017. The issue with regard to prevailing of Rules made under statutory power with executive instruction has come up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions in B.N. Nagrajan vs. State of Mysore, AIR 1966 SC 1942 , Sant Ram Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, AIR 1967 SC 1910 , Union of India and Others vs. Majji Jangammyya and Others, AIR 1977 SC 757 , B.N. Nagarajan and Others vs. State of Karnataka and Others, AIR 1979 SC 1676 , P.D. Agrawal and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others, (1987) 3 SCC 622 , M/s. Beopar Sahayak (P) Ltd. and Others vs. Vishwa Nath and Others, AIR 1987 SC 2111 , State of Maharashtra vs. Jagannath Achyut Karandikar, AIR 1989 SC 1133 , Paluru Ramkrishananiah and Others vs. Union of India and Others, AIR 1990 SC 166 , Comptroller and Auditor General of India and Others vs. Mohan Lal Malhotra and Others, AIR 1991 SC 2288 , State of Madhya Pradesh vs. G.S. Dall and Flour Mills, AIR 1991 SC 772 , Naga People's Movement of Human Rights vs. Union of India and Others, AIR 1998 SC 431 and C. Rangaswamacah and Others vs. Karnataka Lokayukta and Others, AIR 1998 SC 2496 . 10. It is also well settled position that executive instructions cannot amend or supersede the statutory rules or add something therein, nor the orders can be issued in contravention of the statutory rules for the reason that an administrative instruction is not a statutory Rule nor does it have any force of law; while statutory rules have full force of law provided the same are not in conflict with the provisions of the Act. [Vide: State of U.P. and Others vs. Babu Ram Upadhyaya, AIR 1961 SC 751 and State of Tamil Nadu vs. M/s. Hind Stone, AIR 1981 SC 711 ]. 11. Again Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Sri Somasundaram Vishwanath, AIR 1988 SC 2255 , observed that if there is a conflict between the executive instruction and the Rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, the Rules will prevail. Similarly, if there is a conflict in the Rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution and the law, the law will prevail. Similarly, if there is a conflict in the Rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution and the law, the law will prevail. Similar view has been reiterated in Union of India vs. Rakesh Kumar, AIR 2001 SC 1877 , Swapan Kumar Pal and Others vs. Samitabhar Chakraborty and Others, AIR 2001 SC 2353 , Khet Singh vs. Union of India, (2002) 4 SCC 380 , Laxminarayan R. Bhattad and Others vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, (2003) 5 SCC 413 and Delhi Development Authority vs. Joginder S. Monga, (2004) 2 SCC 297 , observing that statutory rules create enforceable rights which cannot be taken away by issuing executive instructions. 12. In Ram Ganesh Tripathi vs. State of U.P. AIR 1997 SC 1446 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered a similar controversy and held that any executive instruction/order which runs counter to or is inconsistent with the statutory rules cannot be enforced, rather deserves to be quashed as having no force of law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: “They (respondents) relied upon the order passed by the State. This order also deserves to be quashed as it is not consistent with the statutory rules. It appears to have been passed by the Government to oblige the respondents and similarly situated ad hoc appointees.” 13. Thus, in view of the above, it is evident that executive instructions cannot be issued in contravention of the Rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution and statutory rules cannot be set at naught by the executive fiat. 14. The Apex Court in the case of Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs. Ranjodh Singh and Others, (2007) 2 SCC 491 in Para-19 of the judgment held that any departmental letter or executive instruction cannot prevail over statutory rule and constitutional provisions. 15. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Another vs. Ashok Kumar Agrawal, (2013) 16 SCC 147, has held in Paras 58 to 60 which read as under. “58. A Constitution Bench of this Court while dealing with a similar issue in respect of executive instructions in Sant Ram Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, AIR 1967 SC 1910 , held: “7. “58. A Constitution Bench of this Court while dealing with a similar issue in respect of executive instructions in Sant Ram Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, AIR 1967 SC 1910 , held: “7. It is true that the Government cannot amend or supersede statutory Rules by administrative instruction, but if the Rules are silent on any particular point, the Government can fill-up the gap and supplement the rule and issue instructions not inconsistent with the Rules already framed.” 59. The law laid down above has consistently been followed and it is a settled proposition of law that an authority cannot issue orders/office memorandum/executive instructions in contravention of the statutory Rules. However, instructions can be issued only to supplement the statutory rules but not to supplant it. Such instructions should be subservient to the statutory provisions. [Vide: Union of India and Others vs. Majji Jangammayya and Others, AIR 1977 SC 757 , P.D. Aggarwal and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others, AIR 1987 SC 1676 , Paluru Ramkrishnaiah and Others vs. Union of India and Another, AIR 1990 SC 166 , C. Rangaswamaiah and Others vs. Karnataka Lokayukta and Others, AIR 1998 SC 2496 and JAC of Airlines Pilots Association of India and Others vs. The Director General of Civil Aviation and Others, AIR 2011 SC 2220 ]. 60. Similarly, a Constitution Bench of this Court, in Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights vs. Union of India., AIR 1998 SC 431 , held that the executive instructions have binding force provided the same have been issued to fill up the gap between the statutory provisions and are not inconsistent with the said provisions.” 16. In the light of above legal and factual position and also considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the order dated 24-4-2018 (Annexure P/1) and order dated 6-9-2017 (Annexure P/9) passed by the respondent No. 2 are quashed. Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioner shall be appointed by the respondent No. 2/Chief Executive Officer and she will be granted seniority from the date when her candidature has been rejected by the CEO on 06.09.2017. It is made clear that the petitioner will not be granted back-wages as she has not discharged duty as Lecturer. 17. In view of the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is allowed. 18. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, also stand disposed of.