Judgment : 1. Under challenge in this writ petition are Exts.P5(a) and P5 (b) Government Orders. According to the petitioner, Ext.P5(a) and P5(b) orders are against statutory rules as held by this Court in Ext.P5 judgment, wherein it was held that without statutory amendments, the Government Orders under challenge in this writ petition cannot be implemented. 2. The petitioner is the Manager of an aided school. The petitioner appointed the fifth respondent as High School Assistant in Malayalam against the anticipated additional post, which could be granted in view of the students' strength and as per provisions in Chapter XXIII of the Kerala Education Rules. However, the post was not sanctioned and; therefore, the appointment was not approved. On the strength of Government Order dated 15th July, 2000 [Ext.P5(a)], the petitioner alleges that Ext.P5(a) was held invalid by this Court in Ext.P5 judgment. Thus, she has come up before this Court. 3. Heard. 4. In Ext.P5(a), it was ordered that no post of HSA (Mal.) be sanctioned from the beginning of the academic year 2000-2001 reckoning the number of students learning other language viz., Arabic, Urdu, Sanskrit etc. This was put to challenge in Ext.P5 judgment. In paragraph 7 of Ext.P5, this Court observed as under : "Apart from the above, it must be noticed that fixation of staff strength of teachers and appointments to aided schools are governed by Chapter XXIII of the Kerala Education Rules. Rule 6D of the said Chapter provides as to how the posts of language teachers have to be sanctioned and indisputably if the post of language teachers are to be sanctioned as prescribed under Rule 6D, the Educational Authorities ought to been sanctioned four posts of Malayalam teachers in the school. In the absence of anything contained in Rule 6 D or any other Rule in Chapter XXIII for excluding the students studying other languages for the purpose of sanctioning the post for High School Assistant (Malayalam), any executive order issued cannot have the effect of amending the said statutory rule and cannot stand in the eye of law. In the absence of anything contained in Rule 6 D or any other Rule in Chapter XXIII for excluding the students studying other languages for the purpose of sanctioning the post for High School Assistant (Malayalam), any executive order issued cannot have the effect of amending the said statutory rule and cannot stand in the eye of law. On the other hand, rule 6(E) would give a clear indication that if in a High School having all or any of the Standards VIII to X, if any one of the languages other than regional languages or mother tongue is first introduced there is a restriction that there should be at least ten pupils learning the language in Standard VIII. Therefore, the restriction of students learning the language applies only to other languages other than Malayalam and regional languages. Therefore, while sanctioning the post of Malayalam teachers the question of exclusion of students studying other languages does not arise. At any rate, in the absence of an amendment made to the statutory rule contained in Rule 6D, Government cannot enforce Ext.P4 as the said Government Order will run contra to the principle contained in Rule 6D of Chapter XXIII in the matter of sanctioning the post for language teachers." Though Ext.P5(a) was brought to the notice of the Government, Government passed Ext.P7 rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Ext.P5 judgment was not followed stating the reason that the judgment of this Court on petitions of individual cases cannot be taken as a criteria in sanctioning posts as a general rule. It was also observed that the executive direction issued in the matter have validity since they are not quashed by this Court in Ext.P5 judgment. 5. This Court is of the considered view that the stand taken by the Government in Ext.P7 is incorrect. Therefore in the light of extract in Ext.P5 which was referred to above, Ext.P5(a) shall not be allowed to stand. 6. Therefore, writ petition is allowed and Exts.P5(a), P7 are hereby quashed. There will be a direction to the first respondent to consider the approval sought for in the matter of appointment of the fifth respondent dehors Exts.P5(a), P5(b) and P7 within a period of three months from today.