Judgment :- Petition was appointed as an Upper Primary School Assistant in the school under the management of respondent No.3 for two short spells, the first of which was with effect from October 20, 2004 till December 20, 2004 and the second from November 23, 2004 to March 31, 2005. Exts.P1 and P2 are stated to be true photocopies of the orders of appointment issued by the management. 2. When the above orders of appointment were forwarded to the District Educational Officer. Thiruvananthapuram, he refused to grant approval mainly relying on Ext.P7 order (G.O.(P) 169/04/G.Edn. dated 15/6/2004). In the said order Clause 6 stipulated that “the claim for re-appointment under rule 51A of the KER will be limited to those who have been appointed against regular/leave vacancies having a duration of not less than one academic year”. It was further provided in the said clause that the vacancies having duration of less than one academic year will be filled up only on daily wage basis. 3. Learned counsel submits that at the time when Ext.P7 order was issued by the Government, the relevant Rule in Chapter XIV-A Ker read thus: “7A. (1) . . . . . . (2) . . . . . .. . (3) Vacancies the duration of which is two months or less shall not be filled up by any appointment.” It is contended by the learned counsel that since sub-rule (3) of Rule 7A, as it then existed, did not prohibit filling up of vacancies the duration of which was two months or more, the Manager was justified in appointing the petitioner in the two spells mentioned above. 4. There is considerable force in the above contention raised by the petitioner. It is also brought to my notice that an amendment was brought in later to sub-rule (3) of Rule 7A with effect from April 27, 2005. By the said amendment, vacancies, the duration of which is less than one academic year cannot be filled up. It is trite that the Government cannot abrogate or nullify a statutory rule by issuing an executive order. By Ext.P7 order the Government had attempted to do exactly that. 5. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances I am satisfied that the refusal by respondent No.2 to approve the appointment of the petitioner has to be reconsidered. It is trite that the Government cannot abrogate or nullify a statutory rule by issuing an executive order. By Ext.P7 order the Government had attempted to do exactly that. 5. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances I am satisfied that the refusal by respondent No.2 to approve the appointment of the petitioner has to be reconsidered. Respondent No.2 shall pass appropriate orders on Exts.P8, P11, P12 and P13 keeping in view the relevant statutory provisions and the judicial pronouncement on the subject, after affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the management. It is made clear that while considering the issue, Clause 6 of Ext.P7 shall be ignored by respondent No.2 as far as this case is concerned. Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms.