JUDGMENT : ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. The afore captioned Original Petition, instituted under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the impugned Ext.P-4 final order dated 28.3.2023 rendered by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram Bench, in O.A.No. 1625/2022. The petitioners in the O.P. are contesting respondents 8 to 10 in the O.A., contesting respondents 1 to 4 herein are the 4 applicants in the O.A., official respondents 5 & 6 herein (The State & the Director of Technical Education) are respondents 1 & 2 in the O.A., R-7 herein (The Kerala Public Service Commission) is R-3 in the O.A. and contesting respondents 8 & 9 herein are contesting respondents 4 & 7 in the O.A. 2. Heard Dr. K. P. Satheesan, learned senior counsel, instructed by Sri.K.Sudhinkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Sunil Jacob Jose, learned counsel appearing for R-1 to R-4 herein (applicants in the O.A.), Sri.B.Unnikrishna Kaimal, learned Senior Government Pleader, appearing for R-5 & R-6 and Sri. P. C. Sasidharan, learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC), appearing for R-7. The Registry has reported that though R-8 & R-9 have been duly served notice by Special Messenger, the said parties have not entered appearance. 3. The prayers in the instant Ext.P-5 O.A.No. 1625/2022, filed by R-1 to R-4 herein before the Tribunal, are as follows: “A. To call for records connecting to Annexure A5 and to quash the same, as it is arbitrary and vitiated due to nepotism, and Violative of the dictums of Honourable Apex Court and Honourable High Court of Kerala or otherwise declare that the same is having no impact on the present selection process. B. To call for records connecting to Annexures A6 & A7 and to quash the same in the light of Annexure A8 Order as it is issued in violation of the provisions of the Special Rules and the settled position that an executive order cannot supplant the Special Rules. B. To call for records connecting to Annexures A6 & A7 and to quash the same in the light of Annexure A8 Order as it is issued in violation of the provisions of the Special Rules and the settled position that an executive order cannot supplant the Special Rules. C. To grant an order of declaration that respondents 4 to 10 are liable to be reverted from the post of Instructor Grade 1, as the appointments made by way of Annexures A6 and A7 suffers from grave illegality and is violative of Annexure A3 Special Rules and the dictums laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court and the Honourable High Court of Kerala and this Honourable Tribunal in Annexure A8 Order. D. To declare that the 2nd respondents (sic) are duty bound to the report the existing as well as arising vacancies in the post of Instructor Grade I (Electrical Engineering) to the PSC, for filling it up from Annexure A2 Ranked List, as per the method of appointment laid down in Annexure A3 Special Rules. E. To direct the 1 and 2nd respondents to issue order reverting the incumbents who have been appointed as Instructor Grade 1, as per Annexures A6 and A7 and the (sic) report the said vacancies to the PSC for filling it up from Annexure A2 Ranked list. F. To direct the 2nd respondent to report all and every existing vacancies in the post of Instructor Grade 1, (Electrical Engineering) to the PSC in accordance with the Special Rule and a further direction to the 3rd respondent to fill up the same from Annexure A2 Ranked list. G. Such other reliefs this Honourable Tribunal deems fit and proper.” 4. G. Such other reliefs this Honourable Tribunal deems fit and proper.” 4. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, has rendered Ext.P-4 final order on 28.3.2023, disposing of O.A.No.1625/2022 with the finding that the by-transfer appointments given to the contesting respondents to the post of Instructor Grade-I, Electrical Engineering, Government Engineering College, as per Anxs.A-6 & A7, in pursuance of Ext.P-3/Anx.R-8(c) Draft Rules (proposing for amendment of the statutory rules) is in contravention of Anx.A-3 statutory Special Rules dated 8.11.2010 and hence, Anx.A-7 has been set aside and it has been further ordered that the 4 vacancies, against which by-transfer appointments were made to the 4 incumbents (the 4 petitioners herein), as per Anx.A-7, shall be reported by the respondent appointing authority to the respondent PSC to ensure that advise is made by the respondent PSC to eligible candidates included in Anx.A-2 ranked list dated 29.8.2022 to the post of Instructor Grade-I, Electrical Engineering, Government Engineering Colleges, Department of Technical Education, so as to effectuate appointments by direct recruitment to the said posts, as against those 4 vacancies. It is this verdict of the Tribunal, at Ext.P-4 in the above O.A., that is under challenge in this Original Petition. 5. We have heard both sides and have considered the rival pleas and the pleadings and materials on record. After hearing the parties in extenso, we are of the considered view that the impugned verdict of the Tribunal, at Ext.P-4 in the above O.A., does not deserve any interdiction and that therefore, the O.P. is only to be dismissed by this Court. We would give our reasonings hereinafter for arriving at the abovesaid conclusions. Reference to the conspectus of the facts and circumstances of this case would be pertinent. The original applicants, who are respondents 1 to 4 herein, will be referred hereinafter for short as ‘the original applicants’ / ‘the applicants’. The petitioners herein, who are the contesting respondents in the O.A., will be referred for convenience as ‘the petitioners’. 6. The post in question is Instructor Grade-I, Electrical Engineering, Government Engineering Colleges under the Department of Technical Education of the Government of Kerala. Earlier, the rule making authority had issued Ext.P-1 statutory special rules dated 2.9.1967 for regulating the methods of appointments, qualifications for various posts in the Kerala Technical Education Subordinate Service. 6. The post in question is Instructor Grade-I, Electrical Engineering, Government Engineering Colleges under the Department of Technical Education of the Government of Kerala. Earlier, the rule making authority had issued Ext.P-1 statutory special rules dated 2.9.1967 for regulating the methods of appointments, qualifications for various posts in the Kerala Technical Education Subordinate Service. As per Ext.P-1 dated 2.9.1967, for Instructor Grade-I, the method of appointment was by-transfer from the categories of Workshop Foreman in the Polytechnics or Junior Technical Schools or in their absence, by direct recruitment (See pages 21 & 23 of the paper book of this OP(KAT)). Later, the above Special Rules were amended as per Ext.P-2 S.R.O.No. 2077/89 dated 19.12.989. As per Ext.P-2, it has been stipulated that the method of appointment for the abovesaid post is by-transfer from Kerala Technical Education Subordinate Service from the category of Assistant Lecturer/ Instructor in Engineering, Draftsman Grade-I/Foreman belonging to the branch of Engineering/Technology in which vacancy exists or in the absence of qualified hands from the item above, then by resorting to by-transfer from any other service in the Technical Education Department and in the absence of suitable candidates under items (1) & (2) above, then by direct recruitment. It appears that, as per the said amendment, as per Ext.P-2, personnel like the petitioners herein, who are holding the post of Instructor Grade-II in the Kerala Technical Education Subordinate Service were included as feeder category as item (2) supra with the requisite qualifications (See page 25 of the paper book of this OP(KAT)). 7. Later, Ext.P-2 Rules have been statutorily amended as per Anx.A-3 S.R.O.No.1056/2010 dated 8.11.2010 and it has been stipulated that the method of appointment for the post of Instructor Grade-I is by-transfer from the post of Technical Officer/Project Officer in Polytechnic stream or Lecturer in Engineering/Technology or Workshop Superintendent in Polytechnic Colleges in appropriate branches. In the absence of qualified candidates from item (1) supra, then by direct recruitment (See page 31 of the paper book of this OP(KAT)) . In other words, inclusion of the post from any other service in Technical Education Department, including Technical Education Subordinate Service, as a feeder category for by-transfer appointment to the post of Instructor Grade-I, as per Ext.P-2, has been taken away by Anx.A-3. By Anx.A-3, the feeder category/by-transfer is only the posts mentioned above. 8. In other words, inclusion of the post from any other service in Technical Education Department, including Technical Education Subordinate Service, as a feeder category for by-transfer appointment to the post of Instructor Grade-I, as per Ext.P-2, has been taken away by Anx.A-3. By Anx.A-3, the feeder category/by-transfer is only the posts mentioned above. 8. When Anx.A-3 statutory Special Rules, promulgated on 16.11.2010 are in force, the respondent PSC has issued Anx.A-1 selection notification dated 30.5.2017 (Category No. 79/2017) for selection and appointment to the post of Instructor Grade-I, Electrical Engineering, Government Engineering Colleges, Technical Education Department, by direct recruitment. The original applicants are candidates who have responded to Anx.A-1 selection notification and after finalization of the said selection, they came out successful to be included in the rank list finalized thereafter, about which mention will be made later. 9. During the pendency of the selection process covered by Anx.A-1 selection notification dated 30.5.2017, the respondent Government has issued Anx.R-8(c)/Ext.P-3 Draft Rules proposing amendment to Anx.A-3 statutory Special Rules dated 8.11.2010. As per Ext.P-3 Draft Rules, it was proposed that for by-transfer appointment to the post of Instructor Grade-I, if qualified candidates from the first feeder category of Technical Officer/Project Officer in Polytechnic stream or Lecturer in Engineering/Technology or Workshop Superintendent in Polytechnic Colleges are not available, then appointment by-transfer can be made from the qualified hands from the Kerala Technical Education Subordinate Service from the category of Instructor in Engineering, Draftsman Grade-I/Workshop Foreman, etc. Further that, in the absence of qualified candidates from items (1) & (2) above, then transfer appointments will be made from the feeder category of Demonstrator/Draftsman Grade-II/Workshop Instructor/Instructor Grade-II, etc. Further that, only in the absence of qualified candidates from items (1), (2) & (3) supra, then by direct recruitment. Hence, the beneficial provisions conferred as per Ext.P-2 statutory special rules dated 19.12.1989, which were taken away by Anx.A-3 special rules dated 8.11.2010, are proposed to be restored as per Ext.P-3, whereby it was proposed to amend Anx.A-3 special rules, as above. 10. Hence, the beneficial provisions conferred as per Ext.P-2 statutory special rules dated 19.12.1989, which were taken away by Anx.A-3 special rules dated 8.11.2010, are proposed to be restored as per Ext.P-3, whereby it was proposed to amend Anx.A-3 special rules, as above. 10. An incumbent in the similar post held by the petitioners in the Electronics Trade, i.e. Demonstrator/Instructor Grade-II, had filed O.A. No. 334/2017 before the Tribunal, claiming by-transfer appointment to the post of Instructor Grade-I, on the ground that by the above draft rules, her feeder category has also been included among the acceptable feeder category posts and hence, she should be granted by-transfer appointment to the post of Instructor Grade-I, etc. 11. The Tribunal, as per Anx.A-4 final order dated 27.6.2019, disposed of O.A.No.334/2017, by directing that the State Government should consider her claim for promotion. Thereafter, the Government had issued Anx.A-5 executive order dated 29.2.2020 purportedly to implement Anx.A-4 order of the Tribunal, by permitting by-transfer appointment to the post of Instructor Grade-I in Engineering Colleges from among qualified hands in the technical cadre, as per the Draft Special Rules, as a special case, etc. It appears that similar benefits, in purported implementation of Anx.A-4 order of the Tribunal, was given to incumbents in other trades in the post of Instructor Grade-I, Mechanical Engineering, so as to effect by-transfer appointments to that post from the proposed feeder categories, as per Ext.P-3 Draft Special Rules. A candidate included in the rank list issued by the PSC, for the post of Instructor Grade-I, Mechanical Engineering, had challenged the said action by filing O.A.No.891/2021 and the same was allowed by the Tribunal, as per Anx.A-8 verdict rendered on 3.3.2022, holding that the proposal, as per Ext.P-3 Draft Special Rules, was not carried out so as to statutorily amend Anx.A-3 Special Rules, the impugned action is ultra vires. Accordingly, the Tribunal, as per Anx.A-8 verdict, held that the two vacancies, which were sought to be filled up on the basis of by-transfer appointment, on the basis of Ext.P-3 Draft Special Rules, can be utilized only for direct recruitment and hence, directed the appointing authority to report those vacancies in the post of Instructor Grade-I, Mechanical Engineering, to the PSC, for effecting advice and appointment in the rank list published by the PSC. 12. Later, the 2nd respondent has issued Anx. 12. Later, the 2nd respondent has issued Anx. A-6 order dated 5.10.2021, granting by-transfer appointments to 3 incumbents mentioned therein (from the feeder source of Superintendent, work shop Instructor (Electrical) and Demonstrator (Electrical), respectively), as against 3 vacancies in the post of Inspector Gr.I (Electrical Engineering) by the DPC process. Still further, the 2nd respondent has issued Anx. A-7 order dated 25.8.2022 granting by-transfer appointments to one Sri. Gireesh.C. and the three petitioners herein, who were holding the post of Instructor Gr.II (Electrical), and Workshop Inspector (Electrical)], to the post of Inspector Gr.I (Electrical) through the DPC process. It is to be noted that Anx. A-6 dated 5.10.2021 and Anx. A-7 dated 25.8.2022 have been ordered after the issuance of Anx. A-1 selection notification dated 30.5.2017. Anx. A-2 ranked list, in which the original applicants have been included, was published on 29.8.2022. It is common ground that Anx. A-6 and A-7 by-transfer appointments have been made on the basis of Ext.P-3/ Anx. R-8(c) draft rules, proposing amendment of Anx. A-3 statutory special rules dated 8.11.2010. 13. As mentioned earlier, in a similar scenario, the respondent authorities had ordered for by-transfer appointment to the post of Instructor Gr.I (Mechanical Engineering) on the basis of the aforesaid draft rules without amending the statutory special rules. The Tribunal, as per Anx. A-8 final order dated 3.3.2022 in O.A.No. 891/2021, found that the said by-transfer appointments are illegal and ultra vires and also noted that the ranked list for direct recruitment to the post of Instructor Gr.I. (Mechanical Engineering) was already finalised by the DPC. It was found that in the absence of candidates qualifed for by-transfer appointment, as per the statutory special rules, such vacancies will have to be utilized for advising and appointing candidates in the ranked list prepared by the PSC for direct recruitment to the post of Instructor Gr.I. So also, the respondents during the pendency of ranked list for direct recruitment to the post of Instructor Gr.I (Mechanical Engineering) had filled up vacancies in the post of Instructor Gr.I by resorting to by-transfer appointments on the basis of the norms in the draft rules and the same was found to be in contravention of the statutory special rules. Since there were no qualifed candidates as per the statutory special rules for by-transfer appointments the Tribunal as per Anx. Since there were no qualifed candidates as per the statutory special rules for by-transfer appointments the Tribunal as per Anx. A-9 verdict rendered on 7.2.2023 on O.A.No. 650/2022 had directed the respondents to report those vacancies to the PSC for effecting advice and appointment of candidates included in the ranked list for direct recruitment to the said post. In the instant case, by relying on the dictum laid down by the Tribunal in Anxs. A-8 and A-9 verdicts, the Tribunal has found that the impugned by-transfer appointments made by the respondents, on the basis of Ext.P-3/Anx. R-8(c) draft rules, would amount to contravention of Anx. A-3 statutory special rules. However, the Tribunal noted that Anx.A-6 dated 05.10.2021 was issued prior to Anx.A-8 verdict of the Tribunal rendered on 03.03.2022. Whereas Annexure A-7 dated 25.08.2022 has been issued after the rendering of Annexure A-8 verdict dated 03.08.2022. Hence, the Tribunal found that, since the impugned by transfer appointments were made on the basis of the draft rules and in contravention of the statutory special rules made as per Annexure A-7 dated 25.08.2022, as against the four vacancies mentioned therein granted to the three petitioners herein and another person is liable for interdiction and accordingly, Anx.A-7 has been set aside and it has been ordered that the said four vacancies, covered by Annexure A-7, will have to be reported by the appointing authority to the PSC for effecting direct recruitment of candidates included in Annexure A2 ranked list finalized by the PSC, in which the original applicants are involved. The Tribunal has found that making by-transfer appointments from the feeder sources mentioned in Annexure A-7, in pursuance of Ext.P3/Annexure R-8(c) draft special rules would be in contravention of Annexure A3 statutory special rules and that so long as Annexure A-3 statutory special rules are not amended, in the manner known to law, the impugned proceedings, as per Annexure A-7, by which the appellants are granted by-transfer appointments, would be illegal and ultra vires and without jurisdiction. 14. After hearing both sides, it is to be noted that, merely because the Government has issued Ext.P-3/Annexure R-8(c) draft rules, proposing for amendment of statutory rules it would not amount to the statutory amendment of Annexure A-3 statutory special Rules. There is no dispute that lot of formalities have to be completed for effecting statutory amendment of the special rules. After hearing both sides, it is to be noted that, merely because the Government has issued Ext.P-3/Annexure R-8(c) draft rules, proposing for amendment of statutory rules it would not amount to the statutory amendment of Annexure A-3 statutory special Rules. There is no dispute that lot of formalities have to be completed for effecting statutory amendment of the special rules. The same has not been done in the instant case. Feeder sources, which are not mentioned in the existing Annexure A-3 statutory special rules, are sought to be included in Annexure R-8(c) draft rules. If the respondents desire to grant by-transfer appointments to the feeder sources mentioned in Annexure R-8(c) draft rules, then the same cannot be done without amending Annexure A-3 statutory special rules, in the manner known to law. Such statutory amendment has not been done. So the Tribunal was fully right in holding that the impugned Annexure A-7 is ultra vires and illegal. The Tribunal has graciously not interfered with Annexure A-6 dated 05.10.2021, even though both Annexure A-6 & Annexure A-7 have been issued for making by-transfer appointments, after the issuance of Annexure A-1 selection notification dated 30.05.2017. The existing Annexure A-3 statutory special rules mandate that, in the absence of qualified and eligible feeder category hands for by-transfer appointments, even those vacancies will have to be filled up by resorting to direct recruitment. So the original applicants have the locus to challenge proceedings as in Anxs.A-6 & A-7 on the ground of violation of their fundamental rights as per Arts.14 and 16 of the Constitution of India to be considered for appointment to those posts for direct recruitment in accordance with the statutory rules. Hence, we are of the firm view that the Tribunal is fully right and correct in rendering the impugned verdict, directing that Annexure A-7 will stand set aside and that the four vacancies, covered by Annexure A-7, will have to be reported by the appointing authority to the PSC, for effecting direct recruitment from the candidates included in Annexure A-2 ranked list dated 29.08.2022, in which the original applicants have been included. 15. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that Annexure R-8(c) draft special rules do not, in any manner, contravene Annexure A-3 statutory special rules and that it only fills up the gaps and lacuna in Annexure A-3 statutory special rules. 15. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that Annexure R-8(c) draft special rules do not, in any manner, contravene Annexure A-3 statutory special rules and that it only fills up the gaps and lacuna in Annexure A-3 statutory special rules. We cannot agree with the said plea of the petitioners. As per the existing Annexure A-3 statutory special rules, the feeder categories which the petitioners are holding have not been included as eligible feeder categories for by-transfer appointment, as envisaged in Annexure A-3 statutory special rules. Annexure A-3 rules mandate that, in the absence of qualified by transfer hands, such vacancies also will have to be filled up by resorting to direct recruitment. When the statutory special rules, as per Annexure A-3, specifically envisage and mandate as to which are the eligible feeder categories for granting by-transfer appointments to such feeder category hands, who are not included in Annexure A-3 statutory rules, it would amount to contravention of the statutory mandate. 16. It is true that, in the absence of statutory special rules, the executive Government can exercise its executive competence which is co-terminus with its legislative competence. It has been held by the Apex Court in decisions as in Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. ( AIR 1967 SC 1910 ) that it cannot be said that till statutory rules governing promotion to selection grade posts are framed, Government cannot issue administrative instructions regarding the principles to be followed, ie, in the absence of statutory rules, the rule making authority is competent to issue administrative and executive instructions. The Apex Court in the decision in UOI v. HR Patankar & Others (1984 Supp. SCC 359) (para 4) has held that when, at the material time, there was no rule in seniority rules, which laid down the principles for determining inter se seniority between an officer appointed to service prior to a cut off date and an Officer appointed to the service on or after such cut off date, then there was clearly a lacuna in the seniority rules, which failed to provide for such a scenario and therefore, the Government of India was entitled to lay down a rule for determining inter se seniority in such a situation and this could be done by the Government even by an executive order. Such is not the scenario involved in the present case. Such is not the scenario involved in the present case. Annexure A-3 statutory rules clearly mandate as to which are the feeder categories which are eligible for by transfer appointments to the abovesaid post in question. When a new feeder category is sought to be included, as proposed in the draft rules, then the same can be effectuated only by amending the statutory special rules, in the manner known to law. In such a situation, it cannot be said that what is sought to be done is filling up the lacuna and omissions. 17. In Abraham Jacob & Ors. v. Union of India,[ (1998) 4 SCC 65 ), the Apex Court dealt with a scenario when there was no statutory rules governing the service conditions, draft rules were framed in the year 1969, which were ultimately approved by the Government and became a statutory rule under Article 309 of the Constitution, only on 21.02.1976. Even before the draft rules were approved and became statutory rule in the year 1976, the competent authority had ordered that the vacancies in the post of Asst. Engineer were to be filled up both by direct recruitment as well as promotion on 50:50 basis, on the basis of an administrative decision. The Apex Court held, in para 4 thereof that, in the absence of statutory rules, the service condition of the employees would be governed by administrative instructions and therefore, there was no illegality in giving promotions to Junior Engineers to the post of Assistant Engineers, because of the administrative decision of the Government. 18. In Vimal Kumari v. State of Haryana & Ors. [ (1998) 4 SCC 114 ] the Apex Court dealt with a case where statutory rules were absent (See para no.7 thereof). The draft rules were prepared in 1983, it was found that the said draft rules could not be treated as rules under Article 309 of the Constitution and could not exclude the operation of any existing executive or administrative instructions on the subjects covered by the draft rules. The draft rules were prepared in 1983, it was found that the said draft rules could not be treated as rules under Article 309 of the Constitution and could not exclude the operation of any existing executive or administrative instructions on the subjects covered by the draft rules. The Apex Court held in para No.8 thereof that in the absence of any decision of the State Government, that so long as the draft rules were not notified, the service conditions of the parties would be regulated by the draft rules prepared in 1983, it was not open either to the Government or to any authority nor was it open to the High Court to invoke any provisions of those draft rules, particularly as the Government had not come out with any explanation as to why the draft rules, though prepared in 1983, were not notified for a long period of more than a decade. Hence, it was held in para no.9 thereof that since the draft rules were lying in frozen state, it could not have been utilized for regulating service condition of the employees, including promotion, etc. 19. The learned Senior Government Pleader has also endeavoured to challenge the impugned the verdict of the Tribunal in this case and it was contended by him that this Court as per judgment dated 23.12.2022 in WP(C) No.36752/2022 and WP(C) No.36809/ 2022 has issued directions, ordering the Government to issue executive orders, for including lower post employees of Kerala Water Authority in the feeder category post for appointment by transfer to the post of Assistant Engineer, considering the delay in making formal amendments to the special rules of the Kerala Water Authority, etc. and that the said Single Bench Verdict of this Court would justify the present impugned action in this case. 20. After hearing both sides, we are afraid that we are not in a position to countenance the said plea of the learned Senior Government Pleader. We have perused the judgment dated 23.12.2022, rendered by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) Nos. 36752 and 36809/2022. A perusal of the said judgment would make it clear that the case was in relation to the employees of the Kerala Water Authority. We have perused the judgment dated 23.12.2022, rendered by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) Nos. 36752 and 36809/2022. A perusal of the said judgment would make it clear that the case was in relation to the employees of the Kerala Water Authority. There, a reading of para no.3 thereof would clearly indicate that the special rules applicable for the Kerala State Public Sub-ordinate Service Rules were adopted by the Kerala Water Authority and therefore it was held that since the statutory special rules of the Government Department were only adopted by the Kerala Water Authority (which is an independent statutory body), on the basis of an executive order, it was open to the authority to pass an executive order exempting or relaxing the rigour of the special rules, in accordance with the provisions of the draft special rules. In this regard, it may also be pertinent to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in Jacob M.Puthuparambil & Ors. v. Kerala Water Authority & Ors. [(1991) (1) SCC 28]. A reading of Jacob’s case supra, more particularly para No.14 thereof on page 45 of the SCC report, would clearly indicate that the Water Authority had adopted Rule 9(a)(i) of KS&SSR Part II by the Board of Directors of the Water Authority by resolution No.8 dated April 4, 1984. The Apex Court held that since the statutory rules regulating Government service were only adopted on the basis of a resolution by the Board of the Kerala Water Authority, the said rules do not retain the statutory flavour in their application to the staff members of the Kerala Water Authority, since the said Government rules were adopted by the Kerala Water Authority by a resolution. It was held that those Rules (KS&SSR) would undoubtedly be statutory in character in their application to members of the Kerala State & Subordinate Services for whom they were enacted but when any other authority like the Kerala Water Authority, adopts them by a resolution for regulating the services of its own staff, the said rules do not continue to remain statutory in their application to the staff of the Kerala Water Authority. It was held that they are like any other administrative rules which do not have statutory force. It was held that they are like any other administrative rules which do not have statutory force. So, it can be seen that where the employer body, like the Kerala Water Authority, adopts a statutory rule of the Government Service on the basis of an executive order of the said employer (Kerala Water Authority), then the application of the Rules vis-a-vis the staff members of the Kerala Water Authority, etc., will be purely in the realm of administrative rules which do not have statutory force. Hence such executive instructions can be amended by subsequent executive instructions. So, the dictum laid down in the Single Bench verdict in the judgment dated 23.12.2022 in WP(C) Nos.36752 and 36809/2022 do not have any application, in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the instant case, Annexure A-3 statutory special rules still govern the field and the same has not been amended, in the manner known to law and what is invoked in Annexure R-8(c) is only a draft rules, proposing amendment, which has not been carried out as per law. In other words, the abovesaid pleas of the respondents are not tenable or sustainable in law. Hence, we are constrained to hold that we do not find any legally valid grounds to interfere with the well considered verdict of the Tribunal, as per Ext.P-4 final order dated 28.03.2023 in OA No.1625/2022. 21. This Court has passed an interim order dated 02.06.2023, ordering that status quo shall be maintained, as regards the petitioners. The abvoesaid status quo order dated 02.06.2023, rendered by this Court in this OP, will stand vacated. The competent authority among official respondents 5 & 6 will immediately report 4 vacancies in the post of Instructor Grade I, Electrical Engineering, covered by Annexure A-7, to the respondent PSC authorities, without any further delay, in case the said four vacancies have not been reported so far, in compliance with the directions of the verdict of the Tribunal and this shall be done within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The respondent PSC authorities will immediately issue advise memos to the eligible candidates in Anx. A-2 ranked list dated 29.8.2022. With these observations and directions, the above Original Petition will stand dismissed.