JUDGMENT : The petitioner, who was appointed as an UPSA in the school, under the management of the 5th respondent, is aggrieved by the refusal of the respondents to approve the appointment, citing that the petitioner did not study Malayalam as a subject in SSLC. It is the case of the petitioner that such an objection cannot be legally sustained, since the provisions of the Kerala Educational Act and Rules do not mandate that, a person should have studied Malayalam in SSLC for appointment to the post in question. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. The learned Government Pleader would submit on instructions that, while the KER itself does not insist on such a qualification for appointment to the post of UPSA, the respondents have been following Ext.P4 Government Order in connection the approval to the appointment of UPSAs. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances and the submissions made across the bar, I find that, the reliance by the respondents on Ext.P4 Government Order, in the light of the express provisions of the KER, which do not mandate that a person should have studied Malayalam in SSLC for the purposes of obtaining an appointment as UPSA, is wholly unjustified. It is trite that Government Orders prescribing qualifications cannot supplant the qualifications prescribed in the Rules and in the event of conflict, it is the Rule that should prevail. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider the approval to the appointment of the petitioner in the light of the qualifications prescribed in the KER. The 3rd respondent shall pass orders relating to approval to the appointment of the petitioner, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce the copy of the writ petition along with a copy of this judgment, before the 3rd respondent, for further action. The writ petition is disposed as above.