B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J. ( 1 ) WE do not find any legal infirmity in the order passed by the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein challenging the action of the respondent Corporation in appointing respondents 4 to 8 as its Standing Counsel through its resolution dated 15-10-2001 and 16-10-2001. The jurisdiction of the Municipal corporation of Vijayawada to appoint the standing counsel in terms of Section 674 of hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955, is not in dispute before us. ( 2 ) SRI Deepak Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the appellant, however, contends that even if the Municipal Corporation had the power to make such appointment, the same should be in conformity with the Rules issued in G. O. Ms. No. 187 dated 6-12-2000 by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. We are required to notice that the guidelines contained in G. O. Ms. No. 187 dt. 6-12-2000 are in the nature of executive instructions and they cannot supersede the statutory provisions under Section 674 of Hyderabad municipal Corporations Act, 1955. That apart, the learned Judge recorded a clear finding that the appointments made by the municipal Corporation were only temporary in nature and some cases were entrusted to each one of the standing counsel appointed under its resolution. ( 3 ) THE resolution, in our considered opinion, is not vitiated and does not suffer from any legal infirmity requiring any correction in exercise of jurisdiction under clause 15 of Letter Patent. The writ appeal fails and shall accordingly stand dismissed.