and executive orders will go against Rule 27(a) and the proviso, cannot hold good. The transfer orders issued herein, as already noticed, are with a condition that for the purpose of appointment, re-appointment, seniority etc. the unit to which they were appointed originally, shall continue. This is significant. The appellants therefore retained their lien in the parent units. Therefore, it cannot be treated as a transfer inter-district or inter-unit in the exact terms. The argument that violation, if any, of the condition provided under Ext.P1, of the five year rule will not be material as no consequences are provided therein, also therefore cannot hold good. The principles governing the grant of inter-district transfer will show that the general norm is that it can be granted only after completion of five years of service in the district opted by the appointee. Exceptional cases we have already noticed. The appellants/petitioners do not come within any of the exceptional cases. Even with regard to transfer in exceptional cases, the same also shall be done by the approval of the Council of Ministers, which is also not available here. Therefore, going by the dictum laid down in Annamma Joseph,s case (1989 (1) KLT 1) such transfers can only be held to be
