JUDGMENT : Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. 1. Challenge in this writ appeal is the order passed by the learned Single Judge passed in WPS No.1799 of 2011 dated 31-07-2023 allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent No.5/writ petitioner by which the writ petition filed by respondent No.5/writ petitioner is allowed and the order dated 18-09-2012 (Annexure P/19) passed by the State Government; proceedings of DPC dated 20-12-2010 (Annexure P/16); order of promotion of respondent No.5/writ appellant dated 30-12-2010 (Annexure P/17) and letter dated 13-08-2010 (Annexure-P/1) have been quashed and respondent No.3 and 4 of the writ petition are directed to convene the review Department Promotion Committee as per rules of Chhattisgarh Ke Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Marmachari Seva (Niyojan, Nibandhan Tatha Unki Karya Sthiti) Niyam, 1982 (in short “the Niyam, 1982') prevailing on the date of DPC, i.e., 20-12-2010. By the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge it has also been ordered that if in the review DPC the petitioner is found fit for promotion then he shall be granted 'notional promotion' from the date when respondent No.5 was granted promotion, fixing his seniority and pay accordingly. However, it has also been ordered that the petitioner will not be entitled for any monetary benefit. 2. For convenience, the parties in the present appeal shall be referred hereinafter as per their status in the writ petition. The facts pleaded in the writ petition by the present respondent No.5/writ petitioner in his petition in nutshell is that, the petitioner was initially appointed as Clerk-cum- Cashier in the District Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Raipur on 28- 12-1982. He was granted promotional benefit from time to time under the Niyam, 1982 and ultimately vide order dated 16-10-2001 he was promoted on the post of Industrial Development Officer (Class 1). It is also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was having unblemished service record and no any adverse remark or departmental enquiry etc. against him. He participated in Debt Recovery Training and obtained appreciation certificates and he has been also awarded for excellent performance as Industrial Development Officer by the Management of Bank. He obtained B.Com. and M.A. degree after having due permission from management of the Bank and the same was recorded in his service book also. 3. against him. He participated in Debt Recovery Training and obtained appreciation certificates and he has been also awarded for excellent performance as Industrial Development Officer by the Management of Bank. He obtained B.Com. and M.A. degree after having due permission from management of the Bank and the same was recorded in his service book also. 3. The service conditions of the employees of the District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Raipur is governed by the Niyam, 1982 which has been made under exercise of the powers conferred under Section 55 of the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (in short 'the Act, 1960'). In exercise of powers conferred under Section 55(1) of the Act, 1960 the respondent No.2 has amended the Niyam, 1982 and substituted the Niyam 5(3)(a, b and c), the amended Niyam would be made applicable with effect from the date of order, i.e., 04-07-2005. It is also the case of the petitioner that for year 2005-2006, a gradation list of Class 1 officers working in the Bank was published as on 31-08-2005 and in the said gradation list the name of respondent No.5 was not mentioned, but in the year 2007-2008 the name of respondent No.5 was added and the petitioners name has been left and therefore, the petitioner has submitted his representation against the gradation list published in the year 2007- 2008 (as on position on 31-03-2008). Considering the representation made by the petitioner vide order dated 06-11-2008 the name of another officer was added at Serial No.1, but the name of respondent No.5 was not deleted, then the petitioner again submitted another representation that he has wrongly been placed in the said gradation list and objected the placement of respondent No.5 in the said gradation list. Thereafter, the name of the petitioner was placed below the post of Additional Manager, but the name of respondent No.5 in the said gradation list has not been removed. The petitioner's objection was that the respondent No.5 was appointed on technical post, whereas the post of Industrial Development Officer Class 1 is non-technical post and therefore, as per the Niyam 5(3)(1) of the Niyam, 1982 the persons appointed on the technical post of the Bank cannot be promoted on the non-technical post of the Bank. The petitioner's objection was that the respondent No.5 was appointed on technical post, whereas the post of Industrial Development Officer Class 1 is non-technical post and therefore, as per the Niyam 5(3)(1) of the Niyam, 1982 the persons appointed on the technical post of the Bank cannot be promoted on the non-technical post of the Bank. Subsequently, the respondent No. 4 has published a list of Class-1 officer of the Bank for promotion on the post of Additional Manager in which name of respondent No.5 is placed Serial No.1, whereas the name of petitioner is placed at Serial No.2. Being aggrieved by the said gradation list, the petitioner again submitted a representation on 06-05-2010 before respondent No.2 and again raised objection that as Niyam 5(3)(1) of the Niyam 1982, the post of Additional Manager would be filled up amongst the Bank employees of non-technical post and the petitioner is entitled to get promotion on the post of Additional Manager. While considering the representation of the petitioner dated 06-05-2010, the respondent No.2 has preferred a letter dated 14-05-2010 to respondent No.4 stating therein that the placement of the name of technical person in the gradation list of Class 1 officer is against the Niyam 5(3)(a) of the Niyam, 1982. The respondent No.2 again sought a clarification from respondent No.4 regarding the provision under which the technical post has been included in the gradation list of Class 1 officer of the Bank. The petitioner again moved his representation to respondent No.2 against the memo dated 02-05-2009 issued by respondent No.4 which was issued in compliance of the order dated 06- 02-2006 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Scheduled Tribes Commission Raipur directing to ensure the instructions of commission and thereby the petitioner claims promotion on the basis of the Staffing Pattern against the vacant post. On 28-07-2010 the respondent No.2 had issued direction to respondent No.4 to comply with the amendment made in the Niyam 1982 regarding promotion and posting of the technical employees. The respondent No.2 has also directed the respondent No.4 to pass an order in view of the order passed by the Chhattisgarh State Scheduled Tribes Commission Raipur. On 28-07-2010 the respondent No.2 had issued direction to respondent No.4 to comply with the amendment made in the Niyam 1982 regarding promotion and posting of the technical employees. The respondent No.2 has also directed the respondent No.4 to pass an order in view of the order passed by the Chhattisgarh State Scheduled Tribes Commission Raipur. Despite the clear direction issued by the Commission and respondent No.2, the name of respondent No.5 has been considered for promotion on the post of Additional Manager of the Bank which is against the Niyam, 1982 and the order of promotion was issued and the report dated 04-02-2011 was submitted to respondent No.2 by respondent No.3 which is under challenge in the writ petition. 4. The respondent No.3 and 4 by filing of their reply contested the writ petition and has submitted that the Niyam, 1982 have been framed under the provisions of Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 and since the respondent No.5 is a senior officer than the petitioner and in view of the prevailing service conditions and guidelines issued by the State Government, respondent No.5 was entitled for promotion and therefore, he was granted promotion by the respondent No.3 and 4 which cannot be said to be contrary to the rules and provisions of law. They have further submitted that on 13-08-2010 the Registrar, Cooperative Societies Chhattisgarh had issued a notification/circular in which it has been observed that the technical employees who were working in the Bank are not getting advantage of promotion, was considered by the Government and the relevant Niyam were amended, i.e., the Niyam 5(3)(a) by virtue of the circular dated 13-08-2010. The respondent No.5 being senior officer over the petitioner was promoted which was strictly in accordance with the relevant Niyam and provisions of law. They would further submit that the gradation list dated 05-05-2010 in which the name of respondent No.5 is placed at Serial No.1 and name of the petitioner is placed at Serial no.3, considering that respondent No.5 had joined the service on 01-01-1994 on the post of Class 1 officer who was initially appointed in service on 05-11-1985, whereas, the petitioner has joined the post of Class -1 officer on 16-10-2001 who initially joined his service on 28-12- 1982, therefore, being senior officer in Class-1 post the respondent No.5 was promoted which was strictly in accordance with law. 5. 5. The contesting respondent, respondent No.5 by filing his reply has submitted that he is working as Class 1 officer in the Bank since 1994 and his name has been placed at Serial no.1 in the gradation list of Class 1 officer. The petitioner was promoted in the year 2001 as Class 1 officer. By mistake the name of respondent No.5 could not be included in the gradation list issued in the year 2005 and on his representation made to the authorities his name has been included subsequently in the gradation list of 2005 with respect to the Class 1 officer of the Bank. From bare perusal of the gradation list, it is evident that the petitioner is junior to respondent No.5. With respect to discharging duties on technical post and promotion a non-technical post is concerned, he has submitted that earlier the respondent No.5 was discharging duties pertaining to the technical field, but has undergone various planning and worked on the post of Regional Officer. Moreover, he is having the master degree in Business Administration. It has been further submitted by respondent No.5 that by virtue of the order dated 13-08-2010 issued by the Additional Registrar Cooperative Societies, Chhattisgarh. Niyam 5(3) of the Niyam, 1982 was amended and the earlier amendment dated 04-07-2005 in Niyam 5(3)(a) has been deleted and therefore, there is no bar to promote employee of technical post on the non-technical post of the Bank. He has further stated that the Scheduled Tribes Commission has only recommended that the petitioner should not be deprived for consideration of his promotion on the post of Additional Manager and there is no direction by the Scheduled Tribes Commission that the petitioner should be promoted on the post of Additional Manager. The Departmental Promotion Committee has considered the relevant records of the petitioner as well as the respondent No.5 and recommended for promotion of the name of respondent No.5 on the post of Additional Manager and in pursuance thereof the respondent No.5 was promoted on the post of Additional Manager in the Bank vide order dated 30-10-2010 and therefore, the Niyam, 1982 has not been violated by the Bank while extending benefit of promotion to respondent No.5. Respondent No.5 is having unblemished service record and since respondent No.5 is senior to the petitioner, having higher qualification than the petitioner, therefore, his promotion cannot be said to be bad in law or in violation of the Niyam, 1982. 6. The learned Single Judge after considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also considering the documents and pleadings available on record has allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner and has quashed the order dated 18-09- 2012 (Annexure P/19) passed by the State Government; proceedings of DPC dated 20-12-2010 (Annexure P/16), order of promotion of respondent No.5/writ appellant dated 30-12-2010 (Annexure P/17) and letter dated 13-08-2010 (Annexure-P/1) and respondent No.3 and 4 of the writ petition have been directed to convene the review Department Promotion Committee under the Niyam, 1982 prevailing on the date of DPC, i.e., 20-12-2010 and if in the review DPC the petitioner is found fit for promotion then he shall be granted 'notional promotion' from the date when respondent No.5 was granted promotion, fixing his seniority and pay accordingly. Hence, this appeal by the respondent No.5 of the writ petition. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is illegal, erroneous and contrary to law. In the Niyam, 1982 there is no classification of technical or non- technical post in the Bank. Post of Assistant Engineer in the Bank Grade-I post and he was promoted on the post of Assistant Engineer on 01-01- 1994 and therefore, his name was placed at Serial No.1 in the gradation list of Grade-I officers. The petitioner was promoted on the post of Industrial Development Officer on 16-10-2001 and thereafter, his name was placed in the gradation list of Grade-I officer. He would further submit that after deleting Niyam 5(3)(a) of the Niyam, 1982 by the order dated 13-08-2010 issued by the Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chhattisgarh, respondent No.5 was granted promotion in accordance with prevailing Niyam, 1982. Although, the order dated 13-8-2010 was issued by the Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chhattisgarh, but in view of Section 2(12) of the Niyam, 1982, the Registrar includes Additional Registrar and therefore, any order issued by the Additional Registrar would be deemed to be issued by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. Although, the order dated 13-8-2010 was issued by the Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chhattisgarh, but in view of Section 2(12) of the Niyam, 1982, the Registrar includes Additional Registrar and therefore, any order issued by the Additional Registrar would be deemed to be issued by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. He would draw attention of this Court during course of the arguments on the order dated 13-08-2010 (Annexure-R/2) that there is an endorsement in the bottom of in the order dated 13-08-2010 which is ^^iath;d }kjk vknsf'kr^^ and therefore it cannot be said that the order has been issued by the Additional Registrar. The Niyam 5(3)(A) of the Niyam, 1982 has been deleted after following due procedure. He would further submit that the amendment carried out by the Registrar/Additional Registrar is not required to be notified as provided under Section 55 and 95 of the Cooperative Societies Act as held by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Ganesh Dutt Pandey Vs. State of M.P. and others, reported in 2008 SCC OnLine MP 11 and he would also rely on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vikas Pratap Singh and others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and orders, reported in (2013) 14 SCC 494 and submits that the present appellant has worked on the promotional post of Additional Manager for more than 13 years and he would not at any fault and therefore, his promotion order cannot be cancelled. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the petitioner/respondent No.5 was having alternative remedy of appeal, i.e., raising the dispute under Section 55(2) of cooperative Societies Act, 1960 and the issue regarding promotion of an employee is covered by Section 55 of the Act and the jurisdiction to decide the same is with the Registrar. The said objection of respondent No.5/present appellant is rejected by the learned Single Judge by saying that since the writ petition is pending for last 11 years and therefore, the same cannot be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. In support of his contention learned counsel for respondent No.5/present appellant relied upon the decision by Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Murena Mandal Sahakari Shakkar Karkhana Kailaras Vs. Satyaprakash and others, reported in 1995 RN 38 and also on the decision of Chhattisgarh High Court in the matter of Mangali Mahinag Vs. In support of his contention learned counsel for respondent No.5/present appellant relied upon the decision by Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Murena Mandal Sahakari Shakkar Karkhana Kailaras Vs. Satyaprakash and others, reported in 1995 RN 38 and also on the decision of Chhattisgarh High Court in the matter of Mangali Mahinag Vs. Sushila Sahu, reported in 2022 SCC Online Chhattisgarh 1860. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents No.3 and 4 submits that vide circular dated 13-08-2010 the Niyam 5(3)(a) of the Niyam, 1982 was amended and thereafter, respondent No.5/present appellant has been promoted on the promotional post considering that he being the senior officer than the petitioner/present respondent No.5 and therefore, the order dated 13-08-2010 as also the promotion of respondent No.5/present appellant is strictly in accordance with law and under the Niyam, 1982. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner/present respondent No.5 have vehemently contested and has submitted that the order dated 13-08-2010 by which Niyam 5(3)(a) of the Niyam, 1982 was amended, cannot be considered to be amendment in the Niyam, 1982 in accordance with law. There is no order for amendment by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies and the order dated 13-08-2010 was issued by the Additional Registrar who is not competent to issue such order. The said order dated 13-08- 2010 is only an executive instruction which cannot be considered to be overriding upon the Niyam, 1982 and it is only to extend benefit to the appellant such order has been issued. There is no order passed by the Registrar to amend Niyam 5(3)(A) in exercise of powers under Section 55(1) of the Act, 1960. The Niyam, 1982 is framed under Section 55(1) of the Act, 1960 and is a statutory rules and in the year 2005 by way of amendment Niyam 5(3)(A) was inserted which clearly mentions that the technical employees will be absorbed other than their substantial post. The Niyam, 1982 is framed under Section 55(1) of the Act, 1960 and is a statutory rules and in the year 2005 by way of amendment Niyam 5(3)(A) was inserted which clearly mentions that the technical employees will be absorbed other than their substantial post. She would further submit that prior to 2010 the respondent No.5/present appellant was holding the post of Assistant Engineer which is a technical post, whereas, the post of Assistant Manager is a non- technical post and therefore, as per Niyam 5(3)(a) of the Niyam, 1982 the respondent No.5/present appellant was not eligible to be considered for promotion on the post of Assistant Manager and only to give him undue advantage the said order dated 13-08-2010 was issued by the Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies without following any procedure of amending the Niyam, 1982 and therefore, the procedure initiated for promotion on the post of Assistant Manager on the basis of letter dated 13-08-2010 is contrary to law and the learned Single Judge has rightly set aside the promotion of respondent No.5/present appellant. Although the said letter dated 13-08-2010 bears with the endorsement that ^^iath;d }kjk vknsf'kr^^ , but the said order of Registrar has not been placed on record by either of the parties and therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly granted relief to the petitioner/present respondent No.5 by allowing his writ petition. Learned counsel for the respondent No.5/petitioner would further submit that availability of alternative remedy of appeal would not come on the way to entertain the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India since the learned Single judge has exercised his discretion to entertain the writ petition and decided it on merit after 11 years from the date of its filing and therefore, after such a long time the parties cannot be relegated to approach before the authorities for filing the appeal. She would relied on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ganga Retreat & Towers Ltd. & another Vs. State of Rajasthan and others, reported in (2003) 12 SCC 91 and also on the judgment in the matter of Krishan Lal Vs. Food Corporation of India and others, (2012) 4 SCC 786 . 10. She would relied on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ganga Retreat & Towers Ltd. & another Vs. State of Rajasthan and others, reported in (2003) 12 SCC 91 and also on the judgment in the matter of Krishan Lal Vs. Food Corporation of India and others, (2012) 4 SCC 786 . 10. Learned counsel for the State would submit that the services of the petitioner as well as respondent No.5 were governed by the Niyam, 1982 considering the stagnation of service career of respondent No.5, Niyam 5(3)(A) of the Niyam, 1982 was amended vide order dated 13-08-2010. The order dated 13-08-2010 was issued after following the due procedure and by way of amendment Niyam 5(3)(a) was deleted and respondent No.5/present appellant has been promoted by following the due procedure by holding the DPC. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. 12. The challenge in the writ petition by the petitioner/present respondent No.5 is the order dated 13-08-2010 issued by respondent No.4 by which Niyam 5(3)(a) of the Niyam, 1982 was permitted to be amended. The order dated 13-08-2010 was challenged before the State Government by filing the appeal and the said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 18-09-2012 passed by the concerned Minister In-charge. The order dated 18-09-2012 is also challenged in the present writ petition. There is no alternative remedy provided in the statute to challenge the said order dated 18-09-2012 passed in the appeal and therefore, the objection of the present appellant that the petitioner was having alternative remedy of appeal is not tenable and the writ petition is maintainable. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellant with respect to maintainability of the writ petition in view of the alternative remedy is on different footing on its fact and therefore, not applicable to the present case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Krishan Lal Vs. Food Corporation of India and others (supra) has held in para 15 of the judgment that:- “15. It is true that there was an arbitration clause in the agreement executed between the parties. It is equally true that, keeping in view the nature of the controversy, any claim for refund of the amount deposited by the appellant could be and ought to have been raised before the Arbitrator under the said arbitration. It is true that there was an arbitration clause in the agreement executed between the parties. It is equally true that, keeping in view the nature of the controversy, any claim for refund of the amount deposited by the appellant could be and ought to have been raised before the Arbitrator under the said arbitration. The fact, however, remains that the High Court had entertained the writ petition as early as in the year 2002 and the present appeals have been pending in this Court for the past ten years or so. Relegating the parties to arbitration will not be feasible at this stage especially when the proceedings before the Arbitrator may also drag on for another decade. Availability of an alternative remedy for adjudication of the disputes is, therefore, not a ground that can be pressed into service at this belated stage and is accordingly rejected.” The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ganga Retreat & Towers Ltd. & another Vs. State of Rajasthan and others (supra) has held in para 18 and 19 that:- “18. Although prima facie we are in agreement with the view taken by the High Court that the petition involves disputed questions of fact in relation to a completed contract of sale of land which cannot be adequately adjudicated upon in exercise of writ jurisdiction, but, despite holding that the disputed questions of fact are not be adjudicated in exercise of writ jurisdiction, yet we are not inclined, in the exercise of power under Article 136 of the Constitution to dismiss the appeal on this account at this stage because that is likely to result in the miscarriage of justice on account of lapse of time which may now result in the foreclosure of all other remedies which could be availed of by the appellants in the ordinary course. At the present stage of the proceedings the alternative remedy of filing the suit would not be efficacious. At the present stage of the proceedings the alternative remedy of filing the suit would not be efficacious. This Court in a number of cases, even after recording a finding that the writ petition was not maintainable and that the High Court ought not to have entertained it, has declined to interfere on the ground of non- maintainability where it is found, that the matter has been pending for long and/or the High Court has already entertained the writ petition [albeit wrongly] and/or when to send the writ petitioner back would cause grave delay or harassment. In such cases this Court has proceeded to decide the dispute on merits. For this, we may refer to a recent decision of this Court in Kerala State Electricity Board & Anr. Vs. Kurien E. Kalathil & Ors., 2000 (6) SCC 293 , in which this Court observed: "12. Ordinarily, in view of the aforesaid conclusions on the first contention, we would have allowed the appeal and directed dismissal of the writ petition (OP No. 283 of 1995) without examining the second contention. However, despite holding that the disputes in question could not be agitated in a writ petition and thus the High Court wrongly assumed jurisdiction in the facts of the case, yet we are not inclined in the exercise of our power under Article 136 of the Constitution, to dismiss the writ petition of the contractor at this stage because that is likely to result in the miscarriage of justice on account of lapse of time which may now result in the foreclosure of all other remedies which could otherwise be availed of by the contractor in the ordinary course. Those remedies are not efficacious at the present stage and, therefore, in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, we have examined the second contention and the factors which weighed with the High Court in granting relief. " 19. Keeping in view the peculiar facts of the case and the fact that it will not be a sound exercise of judicial discretion to relegate the petitioners to recourse to the alternate remedy of civil suit belatedly at the present stage, we proceed to examine the dispute on merits.” 13. " 19. Keeping in view the peculiar facts of the case and the fact that it will not be a sound exercise of judicial discretion to relegate the petitioners to recourse to the alternate remedy of civil suit belatedly at the present stage, we proceed to examine the dispute on merits.” 13. The Niyam, 1982 have been framed by the Registrar Cooperative Societies in exercise of its power conferred under Section 55(1) of the Act, 1960, it is having statutory effect and cannot be considered to be by- laws of the society and considering the judgment passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matters of Sevaram Totaram Pargir Vs. Board of Revenue, reported in 1983 MPLJ 645 , Hemant Kumar Ganga Prasad Gupta Vs. President, District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. & Ors., reported in 1983 MPLJ 461 and Bikal Bihari Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 1986 MPLJ 347 the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the Niyam, 1982 is having statutory force which has been framed by the Registrar under Section 55(1) of the Act, 1960 and is legislative in character. 14. From perusal of the letter dated 13-08-2010 by which the Niyam, 1982 is said to have been amended, it appears that in the bottom of the said letter the word iath;d }kjk vknsf'kr^^ is mentioned and from bare perusal of the letter it further appears that it is not an order of amendment, but only a correspondence to all the cooperative societies of Chhattisgarh intimating that the rule 5(3)(a) has been amended, whereas, there is no order of amendment is placed on record so that it can safely be held that Niyam 5(3)(a) of the Niyam, 1982 was amended after following the due procedure by exercising the powers under Section 55(1) of the Act, 1960. Although Niyam 2(12) of the Niyam, 1982 provides the definition of Registrar including Additional Registrar and Joint Registrar of the cooperative societies, but in the instant case the Additional Registrar has not issued any order for amendment in Niyam 5(3)(a) of the Niyam, 1982, but it is only a communication to all the branches of District Cooperative Central Banks of the State. The note sheets submitted along with the writ petition as well as in the writ appeal only talks about the necessity and requirement of amendment in Niyam 5(3)(a), but there is no any proceeding drawn in pursuant to the said note sheet to amend Niyam 5(3)(a) of the Niyam, 1982. There is no such document placed on record to show that the competent authority has exercised its power conferred under Section 55(1) of the Act, 1960. Since the Niyam, 1982 is having statutory force and is legislative in character, it cannot be amended by an executive order. 15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board Vs. Ranjodh Singh and others, reported in (2007) 2 SCC 491 has held in para 19 of the judgment that any departmental letter or executive instruction cannot prevail over statutory rule and constitutional provisions. 16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and another Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, (2013) 16 SCC 147 has held in para 58 to 60 of the judgment that:- “58. A Constitution Bench of this Court while dealing with a similar issue in respect of executive instructions in Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 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 & Ors. v. Majji Jangammayya (1977) 1 SCC 606 ; P.D. Aggarwal v. State of U.P., (1987) 3 SCC 622 ; Paluru Ramkrishnaiah v. Union of India, (1989) 2 SCC 541 ; C. Rangaswamaiah v. Karnataka Lokayukta, (1998) 6 SCC 66 ; and Joint Action Committee of Airlines Pilots' Assn of India v. DG of Civil Aviation, (2011) 5 SCC 435 ) 60. Similarly, a Constitution Bench of this Court, in Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights v. 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.” 17. The judgment cited by the appellant regarding contention of cancellation of promotion are distinguishable on the facts of the present case, therefore, they would be of no help to the petitioner in the instant case. 18. The learned Single Judge has considered all the submissions of the respective parties and elaborately dealt with the facts as well as law put- forth by the respective parties and passed the order cancelling the promotion and granting relief to the petitioner by quashing the order dated 13-08-2010, 30-12-2010 and 18-09-2012 and also by directing to convene review DPC which cannot be said to be unjustified. 19. In the result the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Interim order, if any granted earlier, is vacated. No order as to costs.