JUDGMENT 1. This appeal by the 17th respondent in O.P. No. 7353/86-A is directed against the common judgment in O. P. Nos. 7353/86 and 10769/85. We are concerned in this case with the appointment to the cadre of Head Clerks of District Courts. The appointment to the post of Head Clerks of District Courts is governed by the Kerala Judicial Ministerial Subordinate Service Rules (here in after referred to as 'the rules'), made in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section(1) of S.2 of the Kerala Public Services Act, 1968. 2. Rule 4 of the rules provides that the post of Head Clerks fall under clause (a) of category 1 of Class I. R.5 speaks of the method of appointment. Clauses (b) and (c) of R.5 which is relevant for our purpose may be extracted as follows: (b) The appointing authority for the posts in the civil wing shall be the District Judge and for the posts in the criminal wing, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, provided that the appointing authority for categories 5(a), 5(b), 6(a) and 6(b) in class I in both the wings shall be the Registrar, High Court. (c) All appointments shall be made subject to the control of the High Court. The control of the High Court shall be subject to the rules laid down in the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules and these rules. It is clear from this provision that as the posts of Head Clerks fall under category 1 (a) of class I, the appointing authority is the District Judge. The appointment however, is subject to the control of the High Court as provided in clause (c) of R.5. R.6 speaks of the unit of appointment, seniority, discharge etc. It is clear from this provision that as the posts of Head Clerks fall under category 1 (a) of class I, the appointing authority is the District Judge. The appointment however, is subject to the control of the High Court as provided in clause (c) of R.5. R.6 speaks of the unit of appointment, seniority, discharge etc. and reads: "For the purpose of recruitment seniority, discharge for want of vacancy and reappointment of probationers and approved probationers appointment of full members, promotion, postings and appointment from one post to another in the same category, the civil wing and the criminal wing of each district shall each be a separate unit; Provided that the civil criminal wings in respects of categories 5(a), 5(b), 6(a) and 6(b) in class I shall each be a separate State Unit." (explanations not extracted as unexpected) It is clear from this provision that the district is a unit for appointment in the civil and criminal wings in respect of all categories of posts other than those falling under categories 5(a), 5(b), 6(a) and 6(b) in class I. The posts in these excepted categories are regarded as State wise posts falling under the State unit. As the posts of Head Clerks in the District Courts fall under category 1 (a) of Class I, it is clear from R.6 that appointment to the said post has to be made taking district as the unit for appointment. The combined effect of R.5(b) read with R.6 is that the appointing authority in respect of the posts of Head Clerks in the District Courts is the District Judge and the unit for appointment is the district. Hence the posts of Head Clerks have to be filled up by the District Judge from among those who are qualified serving in the concerned District. That this is the correct position under the rules cannot and is not disputed. The posts of Head Clerks were being filled up treating district as the unit by the respective District Judge under the rules all along. 3. When such was the position there was a revision of pay scales with effect from 1st July 1983 by order of the State Government Ext. P-13 dated 16th September 1985 we shall refer to the documents with reference to O.P. No. 7353/1986. 3. When such was the position there was a revision of pay scales with effect from 1st July 1983 by order of the State Government Ext. P-13 dated 16th September 1985 we shall refer to the documents with reference to O.P. No. 7353/1986. Before the revision of pay scales, the posts of Sheristadar of Sub Courts carried a pay scale of Rs. 650-1150, whereas the Head Clerks of the District Courts carried a lower scale of pay of Rs. 520-900. The scales of pay attached to both these categories stood revised with effect from 1st July 1983 to the common higher scale of, Rs. 1100-2100. Consequent upon the revision of pay scales the State Government made an order as per Ext, P-5 dated 3rd April 1986 declaring the posts of Head Clerks of District Courts in the revised scale of pay of Rs. 1100-2100 as pertaining to State service. We may also advert at this stage to Ext. P-6 letter dated 10th July 1986 addressed by the Secretary (expenditure), Finance department to the Accountant General, Kerala inviting his attention to the Government Order dated 16th September 1985 to the effect that the posts carrying the revised scale with a starting salary of Rs. 1100 and above shall be treated as gazetted posts. This letter is relied upon to show that consequent upon the revision of pay scales of the posts of Head Clerks of the District Courts, they have been treated as gazetted posts. The High Court on the administrative side passed an order on 4th August, 1986 as per Ext. P-7 by which it has made 16 appointments of Head Clerks of District Courts and Additional District Courts in the revised scale of pay Rs. 1100-2100 on a temporary basis under R.9 of the K.S. and S.S.R., 1958. Though the order of appointment has been made by the High Court, the actual appointments are on district wise basis treating the district as a unit. It is only those in the feeder categories in the respective districts that have been considered for appointment to the posts of Head Clerks in the respective districts. The High Court which has made the order of appointment Ext. P-7 has not treated the posts of Head Clerks as forming part of the State unit. It is only those in the feeder categories in the respective districts that have been considered for appointment to the posts of Head Clerks in the respective districts. The High Court which has made the order of appointment Ext. P-7 has not treated the posts of Head Clerks as forming part of the State unit. Two reasons have been given in the preamble to the order of the High Court for making only provisional appointment treating district as the unit for appointment. Firstly it is stated that though the State Government has made an order on 3rd April 1986 as per Ext. P-5, declaring that the posts of Head Clerks of District Courts belong to State service, the special rules regulating appointment to the posts of Head Clerks of District Courts are yet to be amended. The second reason given is that the State wise seniority list of those falling under the feeder category for the posts of Head Clerks is yet to be prepared. It is pending appropriate action being taken on these two points that the High Court thought it proper to make temporary appointments under R.9 of the K.S. and S.S.R. treating district as the unit of appointment for these posts consistent with the relevant statutory provisions contained in these rules. So far as the appellant is concerned, she was appointed on a temporary basis in the newly carved out district Wynad on 15th December 1984, on the ground that she is the only person available for being appointed to that post there being no person in the feeder category available in that district. 4. It is in this background that O.P. Nos. 7353/86 and 10769/85 were filed in this court by persons claiming to be in the feeder category for the posts of Head Clerks. They have prayed for quashing of Ext. P-7, the order of the High Court, making temporary appointments of Head Clerks on a district wise basis. There is a further prayer for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the High Court to prepare a State wise seniority list of Junior Superintendents (the officials in the feeder category) as on 1st July 1983 and to appoint them to the cadre of Head Clerks of District Courts on the basis of that seniority list retrospectively, with effect from 1st July 1983. There is also a prayer for striking down R.5 of the rules in so far as it relates to the posts of Head Clerks of district courts. 5. The principal contention put forward in support of the writ petitions before the learned Single Judge was that consequent upon the revision of pay scales and the issuance of the order Ext. P-5 dated 3rd April 1986 and the letter Ext. P-6 dated 10th July 1986, the posts of Head Clerks which were required to be filled up under the rules on district wise basis are now required to be filled up on State wise basis. The High Court took the stand that the posts of Head Clerks came into the State service only with effect from 16th September 1984 whereas the petitioners took the stand that they came into State service with effect from 1st July 1983, the date on which the revised scales of pay of Rs. 1100-2100 was accorded to the Head Clerks. The learned Single Judge accepted the case of the petitioners and held that the posts of Head Clerks of the district courts came into state service with effect from 1st July 1983. The learned Single Judge quashed Ext. P-7 and the order of promotion of the appellant and directed the High Court to fill up the vacancies in the cadre of Head Clerks of the District Courts and Sheristadars of sub courts that arose on and after 1st July 1983 on State wise basis depending upon the State wise seniority of officers in the lower cadre. The learned Single Judge also expressed that necessary amendments to the service rules should be carried out without delay. It is the said judgment that is challenged in this appeal. 6. The principal question for consideration is as to whether the learned Single Judge is right in taking the view that with effect from 1st July, 1983 the appointment to the posts of Head Clerks are not governed by the provision contained in the rules, that the posts of Head Clerks have come to the State wise service with effect from 1st July 1983 and that therefore they cannot be filled up on district wise basis. 7. The finding of the learned Single Judge is based on the orders of the State Government Exts P-13 and P-5 and the letter of the Government to the Accountant General Ext. P-6. 7. The finding of the learned Single Judge is based on the orders of the State Government Exts P-13 and P-5 and the letter of the Government to the Accountant General Ext. P-6. The learned Single Judge has taken the view held that the combined effect of these three is to render the rules inapplicable to the posts of Head Clerics of district courts with effect from 1st July 1983 and to make these posts part of the State service with effect from 1st July 1983. It is not disputed that appointment to the posts of Head Clerks were governed by the relevant provisions of the rules. The rules having been made under sub-s.(1) of S.2 of the Kerala Public Services Act, 1988, they are statutory rules. As already stated, R.5 and 6 make it clear that the posts of Head Clerks of district courts are treated as district wise posts, which can be filled up by the respective District Judges, subject to the control of the High Court. In other words, under the rules the posts of Head Clerks of district courts are not treated as falling under State service but are treated as district wise posts. Any change in the method of appointment which is regulated by these statutory rules could be brought about only by appropriate amendment of the statutory rules. It is well settled principle of law that the State Government in exercise of its executive powers cannot pass an executive order which is at variance with a statutory rule. An executive order cannot have the effect of amending a statutory provision. It is nobody's case that R.5 and 6 have been amended so as to take away the posts of Head Clerks of the district courts from the category of district wise posts and converting them into State wise posts. The order of the High Court Ext. P-7 rightly states in the preamble that though the State Government has made an order treating posts of the Head Clerks as falling under the state service, the relevant statutory rules governing the appointment have not been suitably amended. It is pending amendment of these rules that the High Court proceeded to make temporary appointments by the impugned order Ext. P-7. It is pending amendment of these rules that the High Court proceeded to make temporary appointments by the impugned order Ext. P-7. The concluding portion of the Judgment of the learned Single Judge bears out this aspect as it has been observed that expeditious steps should be taken to amend the statutory rules suitably. None of the counsel appearing for the parties have been able to point out any amendment to R.5 and 6 so as to convert the posts of Head Clerks of the district courts into State wise posts and conferring power of appointment on the High Court in place of the District Judge. The view taken by the learned Single Judge however is that the statutory rules ceased to be applicable to the posts of Head Clerks with effect from 1st July 1983 having regard to the orders passed by the State Government Exts. P-13 and P-7 and the letter of the Government Ext. P-6. We shall therefore examine the effect of the same on the statutory rules. 8. Ext. P-13 dated 16th September 1985 is the order of the State Government by which the pay scales of the Head Clerks of the district courts and the Sheristadars of the Sub courts have been revised with effect from 1st July 1983 by according a uniform higher scale of pay of Rs. 1100-2100. The only effect of this order, in our opinion, is to enhance the pay scales of the holders of the posts of Head Clerks and Sheristadars with effect from 1st July 1983, the date from which the revision of pay scales came into effect. That is the only effect of the revision of pay scale order Ext. P-13. This executive order cannot have the effect of amending the statutory rules made under sub-section (1) of S.2 of the Kerala Public Services Act, 1968. The next document relied upon is Ext. P-5 dated 3rd April 1986. The said order reads: "The post of Head Clerk, District Court on the revised scale of pay of Rs. 1100-2100 is declared as one belonging to state service." Firstly it has to be pointed out that this is only an executive order of the State Government. It does not purport to amend any of the clauses of the rules. All that it declares is that the posts of Head Clerks belong to the state service. 1100-2100 is declared as one belonging to state service." Firstly it has to be pointed out that this is only an executive order of the State Government. It does not purport to amend any of the clauses of the rules. All that it declares is that the posts of Head Clerks belong to the state service. This declaration cannot have the effect of amending clause (b) of R.5 or R.6 of the rules, so as to substitute the High Court as the appointing authority in place of the District Judge and to declare that the posts of Head Clerks of the District Courts become part of the State unit and not part of the district unit. It was however submitted by the learned council appearing for the contesting respondents that the order Ext. P-5 can be regarded as having been made under R.2(15) of the K.S. and S.S.R. R.2(15) defines 'service' as meaning a group of persons classified by the State Government as a State or a subordinate service as the case may be. The classification which the State Government is entitled to make under the said clause has relevance to the K.S. and S.S.R. and not to the special rules with which we are concerned. Ext. P-5 cannot in our opinion have the effect of amending the rules or rendering them inapplicable to the posts of Head Clerks with effect from 1st July 1983. The last document relied upon in this behalf is Ext. P-6, which is the letter written by the Secretary, Finance Department to the Accountant General to the effect that all the posts with a starting minimum of Rs. 1100 are treated as gazetted posts. As a consequence of this order by the operation of Ext. P-6 the posts of Head Clerks have to be treated as gazetted posts. That they are treated as gazetted posts by an executive order of the State Government does not mean that they have the effect of amending the statutory rules and in particular R.5 and 6 which confer the power of appointment on the District Judge treating the district as a unit of appointment. No other order or document has been relied upon by any of the parties in support of their case about the amendment of the rules or about their inapplicability to the post of Head Clerks with reference to any particular date. No other order or document has been relied upon by any of the parties in support of their case about the amendment of the rules or about their inapplicability to the post of Head Clerks with reference to any particular date. Reliance was however placed on the stand taken by the High Court on the administrative side in the counter affidavit and the statement in the preamble to the order Ext. P-7 wherein it is assumed that these posts of Head Clerks of the District Courts have become State wise posts. An erroneous stand in this behalf cannot have the effect of bringing about amendment to the statutory provisions or rendering the statutory provisions inapplicable. It must also be pointed out that the High Court itself pointed out in Ext. P-7 that the rules have to be amended. The High Court has not made the appointment on a State wise basis but on a district wise basis. This is consistent with the continued operation of the existing rules. Though the High Court has made the appointment, we find that there is some support for its action in this behalf in clause (c) of R.5 which says that all appointments shall be subject to the control of the High Court. Having regard to the peculiar circumstances it appears that the High Court thought it proper to exercise its power and make the appointments consistent with the rules on district wise basis, though on a temporary basis. After having examined all the documents that were brought into service we have no hesitation in taking the view that the Kerala Judicial Ministerial Subordinate Service Rules have not been amended in any manner so as to convert the posts of Head Clerks of District Courts into State wise posts and so as to substitute the High Court as the appointing authority in place of the District Judge. Until the rules are amended in accordance with law, it is obvious that they have to be followed and appointments made in accordance with the said statutory provision. We hold that Ext. P-7, order of the High Court is no liable for interference, as only provisional appointments have been made by the said order consistent with the rules. So far as the appointment of the appellant is concerned, that was not specifically put in issue and no specific prayer was claimed in the writ petitions. We hold that Ext. P-7, order of the High Court is no liable for interference, as only provisional appointments have been made by the said order consistent with the rules. So far as the appointment of the appellant is concerned, that was not specifically put in issue and no specific prayer was claimed in the writ petitions. Hence the question of annulling her appointment does not arise. We do not express any opinion in regard to the correctness or otherwise of her appointment. For the reasons stated above this appeal is allowed and the judgment of the learned Single Judge in O.P. Nos. 7351 of 1986 and 10769/85 is hereby set aside and both the writ petitions are dismissed. In the circumstances the parties are directed to bear their respective costs.