Judgment :- 1. What is in issue in these O. Ps. is the question of appointment of a suitable person as stamp vendor attached to the Munsiff's Court, Ponnani, the incumbent having died on 15-9-1985. The petitioners and the common fourth respondent in the two OPs. and others submitted applications seeking such appointment. As per order dated 27-6-1986, the statutory authority, (the Tahasildar, Ponnani) appointed the fourth respondent as the stamp vendor. His appointment is challeged in both these O. Ps. Fourth respondent appeared through counsel in O. P. 4576/1986 and has filed a counter affidavit. O. P. 5145/1986 has come up for admission and a copy of the same has been served on the learned Liaison Officer and the counsel for the fourth respondent. 2. S.69 of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 confers on the Government power to make rules to cany out generally the purposes of the Act. Sub-s. 2 (a) states that such rules may be made for regulating the supply and the sale of stamps and stamped papers. State Government have accordingly made the Kerala Stamp Rules, 1960 (for short'the Rules'). R.35 of the Rules states, interalia, that the sale of stamps shall be made by licensed stamp vendors appointed by the Tahsildar. Tahsildar is the authority competent to grant leave to licensed stamp vendors without limit of time. He is also competent to fill up temporary vacancies caused by the grant of such leave and to grant licence for the sale of stamps to substitutes appointed by him in such cases. An appeal lies to the Revenue Divisional Officer against any order passed by the Tahsildar under that rule. Power of revision, either suo mote or on application, vests with the District Collector. R.37 states that every licence granted to licensed stamp vendors shall be signed by the Tahasildar and be revoked by him. 3. As per circular dated 4-7-1984 Government instructed all Revenue Divisional Officers not to make appointment of new stamp vendors except the legal heirs of deceased vendors pending issue of amendments to the existing rules, pointing out that there were proposals under consideration to amend R.35 and 37. On 21-1-1984 the Government issued another circular stating that the intention of the Government is that the appointing authority shall obtain the clearance from the Government before new appointments are made. On 21-1-1984 the Government issued another circular stating that the intention of the Government is that the appointing authority shall obtain the clearance from the Government before new appointments are made. Accordingly, in supersession of the instructions issued in the circular dated 4-7-1984, Government directed that all Tahsildars, Revenue Divisional Officers and District Collectors shall obtain clearance from the Government before appointments are made except in the case of legal heirs of deceased vendors. Learned Liaison Officer submitted that steps are being taken to amend the relevant rules. However, admittedly, rules have not been amended. 4. Neither the statutory rules nor the circulars confer on the Government power of selection or appointment of stamp vendors. Power of appointment in the absence of any other provision, comprehends power of selection also. The power of selection and appointments vests with the statutory authority, namely, the Tahsildar, subject to jurisdiction of the appellate and revisional authorities. The rules do not confer on the Government power of selection or appointment; nor do the rules confer on the Government the power of interfering in any manner with the selection or appointment made by the Tahsildar. It is clear that Government have no power to impose a person of their choice on the Tahsildar and direct him to appoint that person as stamp vendor. 5. The Tahsildar in the order appointing the fourth respondent as stamp vendor states: "The Government in their letter dated 17-5-86, copy of which communicated under the endorsement dated 6 6-86 of District Collector, Malappuram has informed that Sri Muthu Koya Thangal may be appointed as stamp vendor, Munsiff-Magistrate's Court, Ponnani. In the above circumstances Sri M. P. Muthu Koya Thangal is appointed as stamp vendor, Munsiff-Magistrate Court, Ponnani." 6. It is clear that the selection of the fourth respondent was not made by the statutory authority. Selection was made by the Government and the statutory authority only carried out the instructions of the Government that the fourth respondent is to be appointed. This is clearly contrary to the scheme of the rules and the provision in R.35 and constitutes illegal interference with the power which vests in the statutory authority. The circulars also cannot be made use of to sustain the appointment of fourth respondent. Circulars cannot override the provisions of statutory rules. This is clearly contrary to the scheme of the rules and the provision in R.35 and constitutes illegal interference with the power which vests in the statutory authority. The circulars also cannot be made use of to sustain the appointment of fourth respondent. Circulars cannot override the provisions of statutory rules. As the rules stand, Government have no power to direct appointment of any particular individual by the statutory authority. Rules do not confer on the Government power of "clearance" either. At any rate, "clearance" does not involve power of selection. Respondents have no case that the Tahsildar selected the fourth respondent and that was "cleared" by the Government. In these circumstances the impugned order whereby the Tahsildar appointed the fourth respondent as stamp vendor deserves to be and is hereby quashed. The statutory authority may complete the process of appointment of the stamp vendor in accordance with the relevant rules and expeditiously. Issue carbon copy of this judgment on usual terms. Allowed.