JUDGMENT : Shoba Annamma Eapen, J. The above original petition is filed by the State challenging Ext.P4 order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram dated 24.05.2022 in O.A.No.1322/2016 holding that the applicant is entitled to get her seniority in the cadre of Staff Nurse Grade-II reckoned with effect from 17.2.2003, the date of her advice for appointment. 2. The issue which arises for consideration in this original petition is whether the respondent, who secured a district-wise appointment, transferred to another district on request, under the Jawan quota, being a relative of military personnel, is entitled to protect her original seniority in the new unit reckoning from the date of advice by the Public Service Commission. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: The respondent/applicant was selected and advised by the Public Service Commission on 17.02.2003 for appointment as Staff Nurse Grade- II in the Health Services Department and was posted to Government Medical College, Kozhikode and joined duty on 25.04.2003. While working in Kozhikode, the respondent submitted a request for transfer to Kottayam in the Military quota, because her sister Captain Rajani is in the Military service, who also requested the transfer of the respondent to Kottayam to take care of their parents. The request of the respondent for transfer to Kottayam was granted as per the order dated 26.02.2007. 4. When the seniority list of Staff Nurse Grade-II dated 03.01.2013 was published, the respondent was assigned Rank No. 74, and her seniority was reckoned with effect from 17.02.2003, the date of her advice by the Public Service Commission. However, when the revised seniority list was published in Annexure A1, the applicant's rank was revised as 2464, reckoning her seniority only with effect from 26.02.2007, the date on which she joined in Kottayam Medical College. The respondent's case is that since her transfer from Kozhikode to Kottayam was under the Jawan's quota, her seniority should not be forfeited and her rank should be determined based on the date of advice by the Public Service Commission. Though an appeal was filed, her request was rejected by the Government as per Annexure A5 Order dated 29.02.2016, stating that the Government had issued G.O.(P) No.36/91/P&ARD dated 02.12.1991, which reads that any inter-district transfer, except in case of candidates advised to Headquarters vacancies, would entail loss of seniority. 5. Though an appeal was filed, her request was rejected by the Government as per Annexure A5 Order dated 29.02.2016, stating that the Government had issued G.O.(P) No.36/91/P&ARD dated 02.12.1991, which reads that any inter-district transfer, except in case of candidates advised to Headquarters vacancies, would entail loss of seniority. 5. Aggrieved by the Annexure A5 Order, the respondent filed the Original Application before the Tribunal, contending that Annexure A9 G.O.(P) No.12/2004/P&ARD dated 10.09.2004 is the relevant G.O which was issued subsequent to G.O. (P) No.36/1991/P&ARD dated 02.12.1991. It was further contended before the Tribunal that in Clause 18 of Annexure A9 order, it was ordered that existing orders regarding transfer facilities available to employees belonging to SC/ST, physically handicapped employees, employees who have completed defence service, relative of jawan, wife of freedom fighter, or husband or son/daughter who look after the parents of freedom fighter, parents of mentally retarded children, and President or General Secretary of recognized service organization, will be followed. It was the contention of the respondent that there is specific reference to the earlier G.O.(Rt)No.2302/96/PD dated 01.09.1966, wherein the original seniority was protected in the case of relatives of Jawan on availing of inter-district transfer, in Annexure A9 Government Order. Therefore, the respondent is entitled to protect her seniority based on Annexure A9 Government Order G.O.(P) No.12/2004/P&ARD dated 10.09.2004. 6. We have heard the learned senior Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the respondent. 7. The learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners- State and the Director of Medical Education averred that Annexure Al0 Government Order, G.O.(P) No.36/91/P&ARD dated 02.12.1991, was issued in supersession of all existing orders and the inter-district transfer will be allowed only on the conditions enumerated therein, and the said Government Order is still in force. It is further submitted that the executive instructions contained in the Government Orders in G.O.(MS) No.4/61/PD dated 02.01.1961, G.O. (Rt) No.2302/66/PD dated 01.09.1966, G.O.(MS) No.154/71/PD dated 27.05.1971 and G.O.(MS) No.331/76/PD dated 27.09.1976, insofar as inter-district transfers on requests are concerned ceased to apply, once the statutory service rules were amended incorporating the provisions thereof. 8. It is further submitted that the executive instructions contained in the Government Orders in G.O.(MS) No.4/61/PD dated 02.01.1961, G.O. (Rt) No.2302/66/PD dated 01.09.1966, G.O.(MS) No.154/71/PD dated 27.05.1971 and G.O.(MS) No.331/76/PD dated 27.09.1976, insofar as inter-district transfers on requests are concerned ceased to apply, once the statutory service rules were amended incorporating the provisions thereof. 8. The proviso to Rule 27(a) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules,1958 (for short 'the KS&SSR') categorically provided that the seniority of an employee getting transferred at his own request to another unit within the same department or to another department will be determined with reference to the date of his joining duty in the new department. This proviso is an exception to the general rule contained in Clause (a) of Rule 27 that seniority of a person shall be determined by the date of the order of his first appointment. 9. The Tribunal, as per Exhibit P4 Order dated 24.05.2022, held that the respondent was given an inter-district transfer to Kottayam on 26.02.2007,while Annexure A9 Government Order was governing the field. The Tribunal further held that the stand of the Government that Annexure A7 Government Order dated 01.09.1966 has been superseded by Annexure A10, is factually incorrect since the benefits of such Government Order have been specifically protected in Annexure A9 Order, and therefore, the applicant is entitled to get her seniority in the cadre of Staff Nurse Grade-II, reckoned from 17.02.2003, the date of her advice for appointment. It was further ordered that the petitioners were directed to issue appropriate orders giving the benefit of the above declaration to the applicant within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of the Tribunal. 10. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent wherein it is stated as follows:- The tribunal had passed Ext.P4 order after taking note of the various Government Orders safeguarding the interests of jawans and their dependents and family. The seniority of the respondent, who had served the Department of Medical Education right from her entry in service in 2003 is not protected by the petitioners. Annexure A9 order governed the field at the time when the applicant availed inter-district transfer. Hence, it is submitted that there is no merit in the contentions in the original petition and hence, it is only to be dismissed. 11. Annexure A9 order governed the field at the time when the applicant availed inter-district transfer. Hence, it is submitted that there is no merit in the contentions in the original petition and hence, it is only to be dismissed. 11. For deciding the issue involved in this case, it is relevant to discuss the various Government Orders regarding the conditions for inter-district and inter-departmental transfers, which are as follows:- 1. G.O.(MS)No.4/61/PD 02/01/61 2. G.O.(Rt)No.2481/62/PD 16/02/62 3. G.O.(Rt)No.555/63/PD 06/03/63 4. G.O.(Rt)No.1517/63/ Public(S.S.)Dept. 15/06/63 5. G.O(Rt) No.2302/PD 01/09/96 6. G.O(Ms)No.154/71/PD 27/05/71 7. G.O(P)No.36/91/P&ARD 02/12/91 12. First among the Government Orders to be considered is G.O.(MS) No.4/61/PD dated 02.01.1961. The said G.O. was issued in consultation with the Public Service Commission and it provides that mutual or inter-departmental transfers of Government servants from one unit to another within the same Department or from one department to another within the same Subordinate Service, may be ordered by the appointing authorities concerned on request, subject to certain conditions. The important conditions are as follows:- “1)A person transferred to a new unit will take rank below the juniormost in the category in the new unit or department. He will not be allowed to count his previous service towards seniority. Such transfers should not be prejudicial to the legitimate interest of anyone in the department to which he is transferred. But he may be allowed to count his previous service towards increment, leave, pension, gratuity etc. He will not be required to undergo fresh probation, if he has already completed probation. (2) A permanent person need not be required to relinquish his permanency. He may be permitted to retain his permanent lien in the old post until he is confirmed in the new unit or department; but he can come back to the old unit or department only if and when there is no vacancy for him to continue in the new unit, or if for any reason his pay in the substantive post in the parent department becomes higher than the pay of the new post held by him. (3) Transfers should be made only in cases in which the posts concerned carry the same scale of pay and have the same qualifications and method of recruitment prescribed. (3) Transfers should be made only in cases in which the posts concerned carry the same scale of pay and have the same qualifications and method of recruitment prescribed. (4) Persons transferred from one department to another or from one unit to another in the same department due to proved administrative reasons will retain all their rights in the old unit or department, as the case may be.” 13. The next is G.O.(Rt) No.2481/62/PD dated 16.02.1962. As per the said G.O, orders were issued to the effect that the request for transfer made by near relatives of soldiers to their native place should be considered sympathetically. 14. Subsequently, as per G.O (Rt) No.555/63/PD dated 06.03.1963, it was clarified that no distinction be made between relatives of soldiers on active service and those working in the base establishments in the matter of transfer of their near relatives to their native places. 15. Therefore, as per G.O.(Rt) No. 1517/63/Public (S.S.)Dept. dated 15.06.1963, it was ordered that the conditions regarding seniority need not be insisted upon in the case of transferees so that they could be allowed to retain their original seniority in the new district. 16. The next important Government Order is G.O(Rt) No.2302/PD dated 01.09.1966, in which it is stated as follows:- “.......A doubt has arisen whether the first choice should be given to the near relative of jawans in preference to all other cases in the matter of transfer to their native places and whether more than one relative of a jawan should be given the benefit of this concession. 2. After having examined the matter in all its aspects, Government are pleased to issue the following orders:- (1) Each petition of the near relative of jawans for the transfer of his/her native place will be disposed of on its merits. (2) Only one dependent of a jawan will be given the benefit of this concession.” 17. The next important Government Order is G.O.(MS) No.154/71/PD dated 27.05.1971. It was issued in the light of the decentralization of recruitment to the Lower Ministerial Cadres at the District level. It was provided that recruitment at the District level through the District Recruitment Boards would be made subject to various conditions, including the following:- “(i) No transfers will be allowed from one district to another within a period of five years from the date of commencement of continuous service. It was provided that recruitment at the District level through the District Recruitment Boards would be made subject to various conditions, including the following:- “(i) No transfers will be allowed from one district to another within a period of five years from the date of commencement of continuous service. (ii)Such inter-district transfers will be allowed only after five years and subject to the conditions laid down in G.O.(MS) No.4/PD dated 02.01.1961.” The Government, thereafter, issued various orders providing for relaxation of the conditions in certain specific circumstances. In Annexure-A8 G.O.(MS) No.331/76/PD dated 27.09.1976, relaxation was made in respect of dependents/relatives of serving soldiers and relatives/dependents of soldiers killed in action, with regard to the stipulations in G.O. (MS) No.154/71/PD dated 27.05.1971, wherein it was ordered as follows:- “.........Government are pleased to order in relaxation of the five year rule referred to in para 3(i) and 3(ii) of G.O.(MS) No. 154/71/PD dated 27.05.1971 that requests for inter-district transfer of Government servants who are dependents/relatives of serving soldiers/soldiers killed in action or died while on duty in the field/forward areas would be sanctioned in deserving cases, and that the condition in G.O(MS) No.4/PD dated 02.01.1961 regarding seniority will not be insisted on in the case of the transferees so that they may be allowed to retain their original seniority in the new district.” 18. Various other orders were issued thereafter by the Government, providing relaxation in favour of lower ministerial cadres, the candidates, who are advised for appointment in the Headquarters vacancy, transfers within the district comprised in the erstwhile Malabar, Travancore, Cochin area, and the applicants seeking transfers to Idukki, Wayanad, and Kasaragod districts, those who undergo inter caste marriages, etc. 19. Subsequently, Annexure-A10, a comprehensive Government Order G.O.(P)No.36/91/ P&ARD dated 02.12.1991 was issued regarding inter-district transfers of employees. This order replaced and modified certain conditions specified in the various Government orders issued previously. In paragraphs 4 to 6 of the aforesaid Government order, the entire scheme was specified with stringent conditions: "4.Government have weighed the interests of the candidates in PSC rank lists and those who have already secured appointment seeking transfers to districts other than those opted by them. They are of the view that the sanctity of PSC lists has to be protected against distortion by indiscriminate transfers of those who have already secured appointments, to the detriment of those in PSC rank lists. They are of the view that the sanctity of PSC lists has to be protected against distortion by indiscriminate transfers of those who have already secured appointments, to the detriment of those in PSC rank lists. They therefore, order in supersession of the existing orders, that hereafter inter-district transfers will be allowed only on the following conditions- (i) Such transfers will be allowed only after completion of five years' service in the district of recruitment. The only exception to this rule will be the cases of transfer to the district of choice, of candidates advised from district rank lists to the headquarters vacancies and that of near relatives/dependents of serving soldiers/soldiers killed in action or died while on duty in field/forward areas. Periods of service spent on deputation in a different district will not be reckoned as service for this purpose. (ii) Any inter-district transfer except the one, of candidates advised to headquarters vacancies to the district of his choice will entail loss of seniority. Service prior to the transfer will count towards increment, leave and pension benefits.” 5. Relaxation of the five year rule in very exceptional cases that need sympathetic consideration will require the approval of the Council of Ministers. Cases should not be proposed for relaxation in a routine manner. There should be clear justifying grounds supported by the report of the District Collector of the district to which transfer is sought for. Proposal for relaxation in such cases shall be routed through the Chief Secretary. 6. Only 10% of the vacancies arising in the district in a year in a category in a Department shall be filled up by inter-district transfer, including relaxation cases and cases of near relatives/dependents of soldiers." 20. On a perusal of the above Government Order, it is clear that inter-district transfers will be allowed only after completion of 5 years of service in the district of recruitment. Exceptions are granted only to candidates advised from the district rank list to Headquarter vacancies and to the near relatives/dependents of serving soldiers and relatives/dependents of Défense personnel killed in action while on duty. 21. Clause (ii) specifically stipulated that any inter-district transfer, except the one, of candidates advised to a Headquarters vacancies to the District of their choice, will entail a loss of seniority. 21. Clause (ii) specifically stipulated that any inter-district transfer, except the one, of candidates advised to a Headquarters vacancies to the District of their choice, will entail a loss of seniority. Hence, it is clear that even though relaxation in the 5-year rule is provided to the candidates appointed in Headquarters vacancies and to the near relatives/dependents of soldiers, the protection of seniority is applicable only to the candidates advised to Headquarters vacancies. Annexure A10-G.O.(P)No.36/91/P&ARD dated 02.12.1991, took away all the existing benefits available to the relatives/dependents of jawans regarding the protection of seniority. Annexure A8 Government Order, G.O.(MS) No.331/1976/PD dated 27.09.1976 has been specifically referred to in the aforesaid G.O. (P) No.36/91/P&ARD dated 02.12.1991. 22. The contention of the respondent that Annexure A9 G.O.(P)No.12/04/P&ARD dated 10.09.2004 protects the existing orders providing concessions to various categories, including the relatives of the dependents of Jawan, cannot be accepted for the reason that Annexure A9 Government Order is only issued as a guideline for the minimum tenure of policy for Government employees and at best, it can be termed as providing concessions in the matter of granting relaxation to 5 year Rules. The reference of G.O.(Rt) No.2302/PD dated 01.09.1966 in Annexure A9 will not enable the respondent to contend that their original seniority is protected for two reasons. Firstly, after the enactment of statutory rules, first proviso to section 27(a) of the KS&SSR regarding fixation of seniority, the executive orders will not stand against the Rules and its efficacy has lost. Secondly, G.O.(Rt)No.2302/PD dated 1.9.1966 does not deal with fixation of seniority. 23. It is true that as per Annexure A8 Government Order, G.O.(MS) No.331/76/PD dated 27.09.1976, the requests for inter-district transfer of Government servants, who are dependents/relatives of serving soldiers and soldiers killed in action or died while on duty in the field/forward areas would be sanctioned in deserving cases. The condition in G.O.(MS) No.4/61/PD dated 02.01.1961 regarding seniority would not exist in the case of transferees, and they may be allowed to retain their original seniority in the new district. It is in supersession of the above-said Government Orders, the Government issued Annexure A10, G.O. (P) No.36/91/P&ARD dated 02.12.1991 wherein Annexure A8 Government Order is also referred to. In the light of Annexure A10 Government Order, the respondent is not entitled to seek seniority from the date of advice by the Kerala Public Service Commission. 24. It is in supersession of the above-said Government Orders, the Government issued Annexure A10, G.O. (P) No.36/91/P&ARD dated 02.12.1991 wherein Annexure A8 Government Order is also referred to. In the light of Annexure A10 Government Order, the respondent is not entitled to seek seniority from the date of advice by the Kerala Public Service Commission. 24. Rule 27 of the KS & SSR relating to the seniority was amended by a Government Order G.O.(P) 11/1976/PD. dated 13.01.1976 (Published as SRO No.149/1976 in Kerala Gazette No.5 dated 03.02.1976), inserting a proviso to Clause (a) providing for the consequences of an 'on request' transfer. The note to the said proviso stated that the amendment shall be deemed to have come into force w.e.f. 28.12.1960. Relevant portions of Rule 27 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules,1958 as amended are extracted below: "27. Seniority-(a) Seniority of a person in a service, class, category or grade shall unless he has been reduced to a lower rank as punishment, be determined by the date of the order of his first appointment to such service, class, category or grade. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx Provided that the seniority of persons on mutual or inter-unit or inter-departmental transfer from one unit to another within the same Department or from one Department to another, as the case may be, on requests from such persons shall be determined with reference to the dates of their joining duty in the new Unit or Department........" The executive orders contained in the Government Orders regarding the fixation of seniority cease to apply once a provision for it was made in the statutory service rules through an amendment. The proviso to Rule 27(a) of the KS&SSR categorically provides that the seniority of an employee getting transferred at their own request to another unit or department will be determined with reference to the date of their joining duty in the new department. This proviso is an exception to the general rule (a) of Rule 27, which states that seniority of a person shall be determined by the date of the order of their first appointment. 25. When statutory rules govern the field, the prior executive orders cease to apply and executive orders cannot have efficacy against the statutory rules. This proviso is an exception to the general rule (a) of Rule 27, which states that seniority of a person shall be determined by the date of the order of their first appointment. 25. When statutory rules govern the field, the prior executive orders cease to apply and executive orders cannot have efficacy against the statutory rules. This principle has been settled by the Apex Court, in the decision reported in K.P. Sudhakaran vs. State of Kerala [ (2006) 5 SCC 386 ]. 26. It is submitted that if the statutory rules are silent on any particular point, and there is no provision that can be held to be contrary to the executive instructions, then the executive instructions will continue to govern the field, such that when there is no provision in the statutory rules, the executive instructions must be held to be supplemental to the statutory rules. However, Government Orders cannot run contrary to the statutory rules. The applicability of various Government Orders regarding inter-district transfers was considered by the Full Bench of this Court reported in Ramachadran vs. Madhu [ 2012 (2) KLT 283 ]. The Full Bench specifically held that it is impermissible to grant inter-district transfers within a period of 5 years, except in exceptional cases. The Full Bench of this Court, after interpreting Annexure A10 G.O.(P) No.36/91/P&ARD dated 02.12.1991 in paragraph 17, clearly held that relaxation had been permitted only in exceptional cases for which approval of the Council of Ministers would have to be obtained. This Court further held that employees, who had secured a district-wise appointment, upon their request, before completing 5 years, would have to surrender the entire 5 years in the transferable unit even if the transfer is given after one year of appointment. Admittedly, in this case, the respondent, who obtained an inter-district transfer before completing 5 years under the Jawan's quota, is given seniority from the date of joining duty in the new unit, following the first proviso to Rule 27(a) of KS&SSR. 27. In the light of the above facts and the legal principles laid down by both the Apex Court and the Full Bench of this Court, the respondent is not entitled to claim seniority from the original date of advice and the said claim is without any merit and is not legally sustainable. 27. In the light of the above facts and the legal principles laid down by both the Apex Court and the Full Bench of this Court, the respondent is not entitled to claim seniority from the original date of advice and the said claim is without any merit and is not legally sustainable. Accordingly, the Original Petition filed by the State is allowed and the impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside.