JUDGMENT : The petitioner, who is the seniormost H.S.A in the 6th respondent’s school, has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P3 Government Order and Ext.P7 order passed by the D.E.O rejecting approval to her appointment as Headmistress. 2. A vacancy of Headmaster arose in the 6th respondent’s school from 1.4.2017 consequent to the retirement of the then incumbent. The Manager appointed the petitioner as Headmaster as per Ext.P4 order dated 1.4.2017. Ext.P1 seniority list would show that the petitioner is Sl.No.3 in the seniority list of H.S. As on 1.1.2013. The 5th respondent is Sl.No.13. He is the seniormost test qualified hand among the H.S.As. As against the appointment of the petitioner, the 5th respondent raised objections. As per Ext.P7 order, the D.E.O rejected the proposal for approval of appointment of the petitioner stating that the 5th respondent is the qualified hand with departmental test qualifications and as per Ext.P3 order – G.O(Ms). No.157/2015/G.Edn. dated 10.06.2015 he is the qualified hand eligible for appointment and exemption need not be given to the petitioner when there are test qualified hands as provided in the said Government Order. The petitioner has filed this writ petition in the above circumstances. The petitioner also points out that she has subsequently acquired qualification in the year 2017. 3. The 5th respondent has filed an elaborate counter affidavit pointing out that the petitioner cannot be granted exemption and for appointment as Headmistress pass in Account Test (Lower) as well as the Kerala Education Act and Rules are absolutely necessary considering the nature of duties of the Headmaster. The learned counsel Sri P.V.Mohanan submits that the Division Bench judgment which considered the question regarding extension available to the teacher’s appointment as Headmaster has not considered the Full Bench judgments on the point. 4. It is also pointed out that the judgment of the Division Bench has already been stayed by the Apex Court in S.L.P(C).No.031332 – 031333/2016 filed against W.A.No.1846/2016. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the 5th respondent and the learned Government Pleader. 6. The question regarding the promotion of Headmaster and eligibility of exemption for those who crossed the age of 50 years was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Manager, Pavandoor HSS, Kozhikode v. Sadanandan C.M and Ors. [ 2016 (5) KHC 78 : 2016 (4) KLT 207 ]. 6. The question regarding the promotion of Headmaster and eligibility of exemption for those who crossed the age of 50 years was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Manager, Pavandoor HSS, Kozhikode v. Sadanandan C.M and Ors. [ 2016 (5) KHC 78 : 2016 (4) KLT 207 ]. It has been found that the statutory provisions contained in Rule 44A of Chapter XIV A KER cannot be superseded by executive orders like Ext.P3. 7. In the above circumstances, the 5th respondent who is test qualified cannot have any preference for appointment, when the petitioner is the seniormost H.S.A ,who has crossed the age of 50 years. Therefore, the order Ext.P7 passed by the D.E.O is liable to be set aside and I do so. Regarding Ext.P3 the Division Bench has already considered the question. Hence I hold that the said executive order is not enforceable as long as the statutory provision is not amended. Even though the learned counsel for the 5th respondent points out that the said judgment is stayed, as long as it is not set aside, I am bound by the Division Bench judgment of this Court. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and there shall be a direction to the 4th respondent to issue orders on the approval of appointment of the petitioner as Headmaster with effect from the date on which she was appointed and to grant her the benefits within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.