Judgment :- The petitioner prays for writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of the second respondent dated 29.10.1997, to quash the same and to direct the respondents 1 & 2 to select any one of the persons from the panel of names sent by the petitioner/Management so as to enable the management to appoint the said individual as "Assistant to Cook". 2. According to the petitioner, it is an aided minority School. When the post of "Assistant to Cook" fell vacant, the management called for applications from various persons, selected five persons and forwarded the same to the Commissioner of Panchayat Union on 6.10.1997. The process of filling up of the posts was governed by G.O.Ms.No.918 Backward Classes Welfare Nutritious Meal Programme and Social Welfare Department, dated 3.11.1989. If any one was to be appointed under the Noon Meal scheme, the management has to draw a panel of five names and send it to the Collector, who in turn will approve any of the names recommended by the management and communicate his approval to the management. In terms of the said Government Order, the petitioner claims to have sponsored a list of five persons on 6.10.1997. While they were awaiting approval and the appointment, surprisingly, the second respondent passed the impugned order transferring the third respondent who was working in Subbaraya Middle School, Chinthamani. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come forward with the above writ petition contending that the impugned order was in violation of the aforesaid Government Order. 3. In the counter filed by the second respondent, it is stated that, subsequent to the Government Order relied on by the petitioner, another G.O.Ms. No. 106951/A1/Pension and Finance department 95-1 dated 18.1.1996, which is suppressed by the petitioner, has been issued and referring the G.O., the District Collector, Tirunelveli passed an order on 5.7.1996. In that G.O., it is clearly stated that with reference to the appointment to the post of "Assistant to Cook", the applications have to be called for only by the second respondent and it is only the second respondent who is to conduct the interview. Thus, the third respondent is appointed as "Assistant to Cook" in terms of the said order and there is no violation of the Government Order while appointing the third respondent. 4. Thus, the third respondent is appointed as "Assistant to Cook" in terms of the said order and there is no violation of the Government Order while appointing the third respondent. 4. I have heard both the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents. 5. While learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on G.O.Ms.No.918 Backward Classes Welfare Nutritious Meal Programme and Social Welfare Department, dated 3.11.1989, learned counsel for the respondents refers to the Circular of the Secretary of the Government dated 7.12.1998 issued in the context of filling up of the vacancies, in particular, paragraph one, which is as follows: xU';fpide;j FHe;ijfs; tsu;r;rp jpl;lk; jkpH;ehL xU';fpide;j Cl;lr;rj;Jj; jpl;lk; kw;Wk; gs;sp rj;Jdt[ ika';fspy; mikg;ghsu;fs; gspahsu;fs; kw;Wk; cjtpahsu;fs; gzpapl';fspy; cs;s fhypapl';fis epug;g g[jpa egu;fis neuoj; nju;t[ bra;tjw;Fg; gjpyhf xt;bthU khtl;lj;jpYk; cs;s FHe;ijfs; epiyika[k m';fd;tho ikak; kw;Wk; cjptahsu;fisj; jpl;l thupahd ghFghL ghu;f;fhk;s; mtu;fspd; gzp gpupt[thupahd gl;oay; jahupj;J mg;gl;oaypy; cs;s cgupg; gziahsu;fis cjtpahsu;fis kW epakdk; bra;a fhspapl';fis epwg;g ntz;Lk;/ mt;thW bra;a[k;nghJ ,sepisapy; cs;stu;fisna Kjypy; khWjy; bra;a ntz;Kk;/ 6. Based on the aforesaid instructions, learned counsel for the respondents contends that priority has to be given to the list of employees who have already been selected and who have been found as surplus. The impugned appointment has been made only in terms of the said instructions. 7. I have considered the submissions of the both sides. 8. As regards the impugned appointment, G.O.Ms.No.918 Backward Classes Welfare Nutritious Meal Programme and Social Welfare Department dated 3.11.1989 clause (f) of paragraph 7, is as follows: "(f) Appointment to the post of Noon Meal Organisers in minority/non minority Aided School Centres. As regards to the procedures to be followed in selection of Nutritious Meal Organisers in Minority/Non-minority Aided Schools are concerned, the following procedure is prescribed: (a) For each minority, non-minority school, the Manager or the Correspondent will send a panel of 5 names to the Collector for appointment as Nutritious Meal Organisers following the existing conditions of appointment; (b) In drawing up the panel, the Government policy of giving one job to one family should be kept in mind; ¸ The Collectors shall give approval to any of the names recommended by the Managements of Schools and communicate his approval to the management of the concerned School and thereafter the management will issue appointment orders". 9. 9. A perusal of the above extract from the said Government Order discloses that the process of selection is left to the discretion of the management subject to the approval by the Collector so as to enable the management to appoint trusted persons in whom they have the confidence. They are required to send a panel consisting of five names to the Collector, who is entitled to select any one of those names from and out of such panel. If none of them satisfies the basic qualifications, a fresh panel can be called for. Otherwise, if the individuals in the panel satisfy the basic requirements, it is not open to the Collector to reject the names suggested by the management. 10. Reliance placed on Circular dated 7.12.1998 cannot be sustained having regard to the well accepted position that no administrative circular can over ride a statutory Government Order. The Government Orders has been rightly issued in recognition of the right of a private institution and against which Government cannot thrust employees in whom the management does not have confidence. Therefore, the circular is not only violative of G.O. but also unreasonable. 11. With the result, I am inclined to hold that the reliance placed on the Circular dated 7.12.1998 cannot be sustained. The petitioner is entitled to succeed. The writ petition is ordered as prayed for. While dealing with the process of selection, learned counsel for the respondents brought to my notice a subsequent Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.206, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme (NMP) Department dated 13.9.1996 in which an amended procedure for selection is contemplated. Therefore, while making a subsequent appointment, due regard shall be had to G.O.Ms.No.206, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme (NMP) Department dated 13.9.1996. No costs. Consequently, WMP No.27631 of 1997 is closed.