Summarize the following court judgment. Civil Appeal No. 2036 of 1969. Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and Order dated 18 12 1968 of the Kerala High Court in W.A. No. 167/67. Dr. V. A. Sayied Muhammed and K. M. K. Nair for the Appelant. A. section Nambiar and D. D. Gupta for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKARIA	 J. This appeal by special leave	 directed against a judgment	 dated December 18	 1968	 of the High Court of Kerala	 arises out of these facts: 245 Koyakutty	 Respondent herein	 entered service of the former	 Madras State on May 1	 1943 as temporary Section Writer on probation in the Registration Department. He did not possess the minimum	 general educational qualification prescribed by Rule 29 of the Madras Ministerial Service Rules. This rule	 inter alia	 provided that no person shall be eligible for appointment to the service in any post either by direct recruitment or by recruitment by transfer on promotion unless he possesses the minimum general educational qualification prescribed in the Schedule to the General Rules. The General Rules provided that the passing of the Secondary School Leaving Examination or other equivalent examination shall be the minimum educational qualification for appointment to the Ministerial Service. The State Government	 however	 had the power to exempt a person from this qualification. The Madras Government passed an Order	 dated April 15	 1954	 (exhibit P II)	 exempting	 him from the said qualification for being appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in the Registration Department. It will be useful to quote this order in extenso: "The Government consider that in view of the fact that Sri M. B. Koyakutty belongs to a community which is educationally backward	 the petitioner should be exempted from the minimum general educational qualification	 so as to enable him to be appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in the Registration Department under G.O. MS. No. 2858 Rev. dt. 2 11 50 in his turn. . The Governor of Madras accordingly relaxes rules 28 and 29 of the Special Rules for the Madras Ministerial Service in favour of Sri M. B. Koyakutty	 a temporary Section Writer in the Registration Department in the Registration District of Palghat in order to enable him to be appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in that department. Sd/ section K. Chettu	 Secretary to Govt. " As a result of this exemption	 Koyakutty was appointed a Lower Division Clerk in the Registration Department on May 19	 1954. Consequent on the reorganisation of the States in 1956	 Koyakutty was allotted to the Kerala State Service as Lower Division Clerk in the Registration Department. On May 16	 1961	 the Government of Kerala issued an Order	 in consultation with the Public Service Commission	 that "all such 246 persons who did not possess the general minimum educational qualification and were appointed as Lower Division Clerks	 after granting them exemption from that qualification"	 may be allowed to sit for a qualifying test to be conducted by the Commission	 and in case they secure a certain minimum percentage of marks	 they may be regarded as possessing the minimum general qualification of the S.S.L.C. Standard for purpose of promotion to Upper Division and higher grades or continuance in the Upper Division	 as the case may be. The order further stated that the case of those who have been appointed and are continuing in the Upper Division	 they need not be disturbed for the present	 but they should be reverted	 if they fail to qualify at the next such examination of the Commission. According to para 3 of the Order	 "the minimum marks to be obtained for being declared eligible for promotion to or continuance in the Upper Division etc. . will be issued separately. " A gradation list of Clerks was prepared by the District Registrar	 Palghat	 in which Koyakutty was shown at No. 1 among the officiating Lower Division Clerks	 while the original respondents 1 and 2 were shown at Nos. 7 and 6	 respectively. In July 1966	 two vacancies occurred in the cadre of Upper Division Clerks in the Department. The original respondents 1 and 2	 who were junior to Koyakutty	 were promoted against those vacancies as Upper Division Clerks. Koyakutty thereupon filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the Kerala High Court	 praying that the promotion of original respondents 1 and 2 be quashed and a direction be issued requiring the District Registrar	 Palghat	 and the State of Kerala to consider his claim and to promote him in preference to the original respondents 1 and 2. Koyakutty 's contention was that under the Rules	 seniority should be the basis for promotion; and promotion of his juniors amounted to a denial of equable treatment guaranteed under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. His stand was that the exemption granted to him by the Government	 removing the bar from being appointed in the Ministerial Service enured for all purposes. This contention was rejected by the trial Judge	 who held that the exemption granted to Koyakutty was for the limited object of enabling him to be appointed and continued in the post of a Lower Division Clerk and did not remove the bar of minimum educational qualification for his promotion to the post of Upper Division Clerk. In the result	 Koyakutty 's writ petition was dismissed. 247 On appeal by Koyakutty	 a Division Bench of the High Court reversed the judgment of the learned Single Judge	 and directed the District Registrar	 Palghat	 and the State Government to treat Koyakutty as eligible for promotion as an Upper Division Clerk and pass necessary orders on that basis. The Division Bench further directed that Koyakutty 's rank in the cadre of Upper Division Clerks will	 also	 be determined after he is promoted to that Cadre. Hence this appeal by the District Registrar	 Palghat and the State. The first question that falls to be considered is	 whether in the matter of promotion to the cadre of Upper Division Clerks	 the respondent was governed by the Madras Ministerial Service Rules or by the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules	 1958 ? The Government of Kerala	 on February 25	 1957	 issued an Order S(D)S 43405/56/PD to the effect that as an interim arrangement	 every officer in the service of the new State would be bound by the Service Rules of Travancore Cochin or Madras	 as the case may be	 to which he belonged prior to November 1	 1956 until common service rules are framed and issued. Thereafter	 in exercise of the powers under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution	 the Governor of Kerala in supersession of all rules on the subject	 framed the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules	 1958. Part I of these Rules deals with preliminary matters. Rule 2(16) in Part I defines "Special Rules" as meaning "the rules in Part III applicable to each service or class of service." Such Special Rules have not	 however	 been framed by the Governor. Part II contains the General Rules. Rule 1 in Part II delineates the scope of the General Rules. It runs thus: "The rules in this Part shall apply to all State and Subordinate Services and the holders of all posts	 whether temporary or permanent in any such service	 appointed thereto before	 or after the date on which these rules come into force as provided in sub rule (b) of rule 1 in Part 1 except to the extent otherwise expressly	 provided (a) by or under any law for the time being in force	 or (b) in respect of any member of such service by a contract or agreement subsisting between such member and the State Government. " 248 Rule 2 in the same Part provides: "2. Relation to the Special Rules. If any provision in the General Rules contained in the Part is repugnant to a provision in the Special Rules applicable to any particular service contained in Part III	 the latter shall in respect of that service	 prevail over the provision in the General Rules in this Part. " It will bear repetition that since no Special Rules	 as defined in Rule 2(16) of Part I	 have so far been framed by the Governor under Article 309 of the Constitution	 Rule 2 in Part II has remained otise. Rule 28 in Part II provides regarding promotion. Clause (i) of clause (b) of this rule deals with promotion and appointment by transfer to a selection category or Selection Grade in a service. Such promotion shall be made on the basis of merit and ability	 seniority being considered only where merit and ability are approximately equal. Sub clause (ii) of clause (b) of Rule 28 is captioned: "Promotion and appointment by transfer to higher posts according to seniority". Its material part	 as it stood before the amendment of December 28	 1970	 reads as under: "All other promotions or appointments by transfer shall	 subject to the provisions of these rules and the special rules	 be made in accordance with seniority subject to the person 's fitness for appointment. " It is contended on behalf of the appellants that by virtue of the Kerala Government Order dated February 25	 1957	 referred to earlier	 the Special Rules contained in the Madras Ministerial Service Rules	 continued to govern the respondent because those Special Rules have not been superseded by the Kerala Rules of 1958. The point sought to be made out is that the Special Rules	 within the meaning of Rule 2 in Part II read with the aforesaid Government Order dated February 25	 1957	 will mean the Special Rules contained in the Madras Rules. A similar argument was raised before the Appellate Bench of the High Court	 also	 and it was repelled	 and	 in our opinion	 rightly. Special Rules for the purpose of the Kerala Rules	 1958	 will be as defined in Rule 2(16) in Part I. That definition contemplates that Special Rules in Part III will be framed by the Governor of Kerala. But	 no such rules have so far been framed. We have	 therefore	 no hesitation in holding	 in agreement with the High Court	 that in the matter of promotion as an Upper Division 249 Clerk	 the appellant was governed by Rule 28(b)(ii) in Part II. The alternative contention that has been advanced on behalf of the appellant is that even if Rule 28(b)(ii) was applicable	 then also	 it was well within the power of the State Government to prescribe a test to judge the fitness of those persons who did not possess the minimum educational qualification and were appointed as Lower Division Clerks on being exempted from that qualification by Government Order. In this connection	 reference has been made to Article 162 of the Constitution	 to show what the State Government could do by framing a statutory rule under Article 309	 proviso	 could well be done by an executive order	 the executive power of the State being co extensive with its legislative power. It is maintained that the power of the Government to prescribe selective test for promotion to higher service has been recognised by this Court in several decisions. Reference has been made in this connection to the decisions of this Court in B. N. Nagarajan & Ors. vs State of Mysore & Ors.	 Union of India etc. vs Majji Jangamayya etc.	 State of Jammu & Kashmir vs Triloki Nath Khosa & Ors. It was further submitted that the possession of the minimum educational qualification	 i.e. a certificate of having passed the S.L.C. Examination or any equivalent examination is presumptive proof of the fitness of the holder thereof	 for promotion to the cadre of Upper Division Clerks. Therefore	 according to the counsel	 there was a reasonable basis for classifying those who did not possess this minimum educational qualification as a category apart from those who possessed such a qualification. In this context	 it is further emphasised that the exemption was granted only for the purpose of being appointed as a Lower Division Clerk	 and not for the purpose of further promotion. As against this	 Mr. Nambiar	 appearing for the respondents	 submits that once the bar of minimum educational qualification was removed for appointment as Lower Division Clerk	 further promotion of the respondent was governed by Rule 28(b)(ii)	 Part I of the Kerala Rules of 1958. After their appointment	 the respondent or others like him who had been exempted from possessing the minimum educational qualification	 had become integral members of the same cadre. They could not be singled out for hostile treatment. Counsel has submitted that the rule enunciated by this Court in Triloki Nath 250 Khosa 's case (ibid)	 is not applicable because the facts of that case were entirely different. Counsel further stated that any executive order issued by the Government	 cannot supplant the statutory rules framed by the Governor under Article 309. Executive instructions can operate only in areas not covered by the rules. But here the area was fully occupied by the statutory rule 28(b)(ii). There can be no quarrel with the proposition that if the statutory rules framed by the Governor or any law enacted by the State Legislature under Article 309 is silent on any particular point	 the Government can fill up that gap and supplement the rule by issuing administrative instructions not inconsistent with the statutory provisions already framed or enacted. The Executive instructions in order to be valid must run subservient to the statutory provisions. In the instant case	 however	 it could not be said that there was a gap or a void in the statutory provisions in the matter of promotion from the cadre of Lower Division Clerks to that of Upper Division Clerks. After the enactment of the Kerala Public Services Act of 1968	 the position was that by virtue of Section 3 of that Act	 the Kerala State Subordinate Services Rules of 1958 framed by the Governor under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution were deemed to have been made under the Act and were continued until superseded by rules made under that Act. As noticed already	 no Special Rules relating to Upper Division Clerks have been framed. The General Rules in Part II will	 therefore	 be applicable to Upper Division Clerks	 also. It will bear repetition that the preamble to the Rules and Rule 1 in Part II	 indicate that all the previous rules have been superseded. These General Rules do not provide any minimum general educational qualification for promotion to the cadre of Upper Division Clerks from that of Lower Division Clerks. All that is required by rule 28 (b) (ii) which governs the promotions from the Lower Division to the Upper Division	 is that promotions shall be made in accordance with seniority subject to the person 's fitness for appointment. There is nothing in this sub rule or elsewhere which provides that a member of the Lower Division will be presumed to be unfit for promotion to the Upper Division unless he possesses the minimum general educational qualification	 or 251 passes a qualifying test. It is conceivable that the State Government may prescribe a general test for all Clerks of the Lower Division to judge their fitness for promotion to the Upper Division. But	 such is not the case here. The respondent and the others like him who were appointed as Lower Division Clerks after granting them exemption from possessing the minimum general educational qualification have been singled out for this discriminatory treatment. There is nothing on the record to show that the case of the respondent was considered for promotion and he was found unfit. The ratio of Triloki Nath Khosa 's case (ibid) does not advance the case of the appellant State. Therein	 persons appointed directly and by promotion were integrated into a common class of Assistant Engineers. Rule 12 provided that Graduates among the Assistant Engineers	 shall be eligible for promotion to the cadre of Executive Engineers	 to the exclusion of diploma holders. This rule was a statutory rule. Its constitutional validity was challenged on the ground that it violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This Court	 speaking through Chandrachud J. (as he then was)	 repelled this contention with the reasoning that the classification of Assistant Engineers into degree holders and diploma holders could not be held to rest on any unreal or unreasonable basis. The classification was made with a view to achieving administrative efficiency in the Engineering Services. It will be seen that Triloki Nath 's case	 is distinguishable from the one before us	 at least	 in three important aspects. Firstly	 in that case	 the statutory rule in question did not make any discrimination in relation to the source of recruitment	 it simply provided that Graduates alone shall go into the higher cadre of Executive Engineers	 irrespective of whether they were appointed as Assistant Engineers directly or by promotion. In the present case	 the impugned notification prescribes a qualifying test for promotion	 not for all but only for one category of persons with reference to the manner in which they initially entered service. Secondly	 in Triloki Nath 's case the post of the Executive Engineer carries higher responsibility and duties of a supervisory character requiring higher mental equipment and administrative skill. Thus	 there	 the classification rested on intelligible differentia having a direct nexus to the object (viz.	 administrative efficiency)	 to be achieved. In the instant case	 there is nothing on record to show that the duties discharged by the clerks of the Upper Division are substantially different from those in the Lower Division. Thirdly	 in the instant case the statutory rule does not warrant the classification made by the impugned Government Order. The primary criterion for promotion to the Upper Division prescribed by Rule 28(b) (ii) in seniority if the person concerned is otherwise not unfit. The 252 impugned Government Order impinges upon that statutory rule inasmuch as it lays down that even if a Lower Division Clerk who entered service as a result of exemption from possession minimum educational qualification	 satisfied the criterion of seniority cum fitness prescribed by this Rule	 he shall not be considered for promotion unless he qualifies in the test. The relevant statutory Rules governing the appellant do not provide any minimum general education qualification for promotion to the Upper Division. The case in point is Roshal Lal Tandon vs Union of India. In that case	 before the impugned notification was issued	 there was only one rule of promotion for both the departmental promotees and the direct recruits	 and that rule was seniority cum suitability	 and there was no rule of promotion separately made for application to direct recruits. As a result of the impugned notification	 a discriminatory treatment was made in favour of the direct recruits	 i.e. existing Apprentice Train Examiners who had already been absorbed in Grade 'D ' by March 31	 1966	 because the notification provided that this group of Apprentice Train Examiners should first be accommodated en bloc in Grade 'C ' upto 80 per cent of vacancies reserved for them without undergoing any selection. Ramaswami J.	 speaking for a Bench of five learned Judges	 held that the impugned notification violated the guarantee under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The reason was that once the direct recruits and promotees were absorbed in one cadre	 they formed one class and they could not be discriminated against for the purpose of further promotion to the higher Grade 'C '. In that case	 it was not disputed that before the impugned notification was issued there was only one rule of promotion for both the departmental promotees and the direct recruits and that rule was 'seniority cum suitability '. The impugned notification was discriminatory because in the case of that category who were appointed as Train Examiners by promotion the aforesaid test of 'seniority cum suitability ' prescribed by the rule for further promotion to the higher Grade 'C ' was abandoned and	 instead	 selection on merit only was adopted. The principle enunciated in Roshan Lal Tandon vs Union of India applied with greater force to the facts of the present case because here the classification made by the impugned Government Order is not only unfair and irrational but also	 virtually amounts to abandonment of the test of seniority cum fitness provided in rule 28 (b) (ii). The last point for consideration is	 whether it was proper for the High Court to issue a positive direction requiring the appellant to 253 promote the respondent to the Upper Division and thereafter to determine his rank in the cadre of Upper Division Clerks. Ordinarily	 the court does not issue a direction in such positive terms	 but the peculiar feature of this case is that it has not been disputed that Koyakutty respondent satisfies the two fold criterion for promotion laid down in the statutory rule 28(b)(ii). Indeed	 the District Registrar	 Palghat	 who was impleaded as respondent 3 in the writ petition	 expressly admitted in paragraph 8 of his counter affidavit filed before the High Court	 "that the seniority of service is the basis of promotion from the ranks of Lower Division Clerks to the ranks of Upper Division Clerks provided they are fully qualified by passing the departmental tests for the purpose". It was never the case of the Registrar that Koyakutty was not otherwise fit for promotion. Indeed	 even in the grounds of appeal to this Court	 incorporated in the Special Leave Petition	 it is not alleged that Koyakutty did not satisfy the criterion of seniority cum fitness prescribed by Rule 28(b)(ii). The position taken by the appellant	 throughout	 was that this rule should be deemed to have been "supplemented" by the impugned Government Notification. It is not correct that the impugned Notification merely "supplements" or fills up a gap in the statutory rules. It tends to super add or super impose by an Executive fiat on the statutory rules something inconsistent with the same. Since the existence of both the criteria viz.	 seniority and fitness for promotion to the Upper Division prescribed by the statutory Rule 28(b)(ii)	 in the case of Koyakutty was not disputed	 the High Court was justified in issuing the direction	 it did. For the foregoing reasons the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.

The respondent	 who originally belonged to the Madras Ministerial Service	 was allotted to the State of Kerala as a lower division clerk on the reorganisation of States. On the ground that he belonged to a community which was educationally backward the State Government of Madras appointed him as a lower division clerk relaxing the requirements of r. 29 of the Special Rules for Madras Ministerial Service which prescribed minimum general educational qualification for appointment to service under the State Government. In 1957 the State Government of Kerala issued an order providing that	 until common service rules were framed	 every officer in the service of the new State of Kerala would be bound by the service rules of Travancore Cochin or Madras	 to which he belonged prior to November 1	 1956. Thereafter in supersession of all earlier rules the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules	 1958 were framed. Rule 1 of the General Rules in Part II stated that the rules in that part shall apply to all State and Subordinate Services and the holders of all posts appointed before or after the date on which those rules came into force. The Special Rules contemplated by r. 2(16) of Part I had however	 not been framed. Rule 28(b) (ii) of Part II provided that all promotions or appointments by transfer [other than those mentioned in cl. (i) of this rule] shall be made in accordance with the seniority	 subject to the person 's fitness for appointment. In 1961	 persons who did not possess the general minimum educational qualifications but were appointed as lower division clerks	 were allowed to sit for a qualifying test for promotion to upper division clerks. In the gradation list of officiating lower division clerks prepared	 the respondent was shown at No. 1 place. Even so	 when two vacancies of upper division clerks occurred	 two persons junior to him in the gradation list were promoted ignoring the respondent. In his writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution the respondent contended that the exemption granted to him removing the bar of educational qualification enured to him for all purposes	 and therefore	 promotions of two juniors	 ignoring r. 28(b)(ii) under which seniority was the basis for promotion	 amounted to denial of equal treatment guaranteed under articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 243 A single Judge of the High Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the exemption granted was for the limited purpose of enabling the respondent to be appointed and continued in the post of lower division clerk but that it did not remove the bar of minimum qualification for promotion. On appeal the division bench reversed the order of the single Judge	 and directed the Government to promote him and determine his rank in the cadre of upper division clerks. On appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant that (1) the Special Rules contemplated by r. 2 of Part I read with the State Government 's order of 1957	 were the Special Rules contained in the Madras Ministerial Service Rules; (2) even if r. 28(b)(ii) was applicable it was well within the power of the State Government to prescribe a test to judge the fitness of persons who were exempted from the minimum educational qualifications when appointed as lower division clerks and (3) there was a reasonable basis for classifying those persons who did not possess the minimum educational qualification as a category apart from those who possessed such a qualification. Dismissing the appeal	 ^ HELD: 1 (a) The Special Rules	 for the purposes of Kerala Rules of 1958	 would be as defined in r. 2(16) of Part I. That definition contemplated that Special Rules would be framed by the Governor but no such rules had been framed. [248 H] (b) In the matter of promotion as on upper division clerk the respondent was governed by r. 28(b)(ii) in Part II. [249 A] 2. It cannot be said that the impugned notification merely "supplemented" or filled up a gap in the statutory rules. It tended to superimpose or super add by an executive flat on the statutory rules something inconsistent with the same. If the statutory rules framed by the Governor or any law enacted under article 309 is silent on any particular point	 the government can fill up that gap and supplement the rule by issuing administrative instructions not inconstant with the statutory provisions already framed or enacted. [253 D; 250 C] In the instant case	 however	 it could not be said that there was a gap in the statutory provisions in the matter of promotion from the cadre of lower division clerks to that of upper division clerks. 3(a) The classification made by the impugned government order was not only unfair and irrational but also	 virtually amounted to abandonment of the test of seniority cum fitness provided in r. 28(b)(ii). [252 G H] (h) By virtue of section 3 of the Kerala Public Services Act	 1968	 the 1958 Rules were deemed to have been made under the Act and were continued until superseded by rules made under that Act. No Special Rules relating to upper division clerks having been made the General Rules in Part II would be applicable to upper division clerks	 also. [250 E] (c) The 1958 Rules superseded all earlier rules. The General Rules did not provide any minimum general educational qualification for promotion to 244 the cadre of upper division clerks. There is nothing in r. 28(b)(ii) or elsewhere	 which provides that a lower division clerk would be presumed to be unfit for promotion to upper division unless he possessed the minimum general educational qualification or passed the qualifying test. [250 G H] There is nothing to show that the respondent was considered for promotion but was found unfit. [251 B] (d)(i) The impugned notification prescribed the qualifying test for promotion	 not for all	 but only for one category of persons with reference to the manner in which they initially entered service. The respondent and others like him	 appointed as lower division clerks after granting them exemption	 had been singled out for this discriminatory treatment. [251 F] (d)(ii) There is nothing on record to show that the duties discharged by the clerks of the upper division were substantially different from those in the lower division. [251 G H] (iii) The statutory rule did not warrant the classification made by the impugned order. It impinged upon the statutory rule inasmuch as it laid down that even if a lower division clerk who entered service as a result of exemption from possessing minimum educational qualification satisfied the criterion of seniority cum fitness prescribed by this rule	 he shall not be considered for promotion unless he qualified in the test. The relevant rule did not provide any minimum general educational qualification for promotion to upper division. [252 A B] Roshan Lal Tandon vs Union of India	 ; ; followed. State of Jammu & Kashmir vs Triloki Nath Khosa & Ors. ; ; held inapplicable. Though ordinarily the court would not issue a direction requiring the government to promote an aggrieved employee and thereafter determine his rank in the cadre	 in the peculiar facts of this case the respondent satisfied the two fold criterion for promotion laid down in r. 28(b)(ii) and since the existence of both the criteria for promotion were not in dispute the High Court was justified in issuing the direction	 it did. [253 A B; E]