JUDGMENT H. L. Agrawal, J. The petitioner has obtained a rule from this Court as to why the order of the District Education Officer, Bhojpur-Rohtas, Arrah (Respondent No. 1) dated 6.11.1974 communicated by the Sub-Divisional Education Officer-cum-Municipal Education Officer, Arrah (Respondent No. 2) in his letter dated the 11th November, 1974 (Annexure 6) canceling the B. A. trained and I. A. C. T. pay scales payable to the petitioner should not be quashed and cancelled. The relevant facts are these: 2. The petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant teacher on 5.3.1968 by the Chairman of the Arrah Municipality and posted at Karmantola Upper Primary School, Arrah. The petitioner was already a Graduate and after his appointment, he obtained Bachelor of Education Degree in the year 1971 from the Bhagalpur University. The said Upper Primary School was latter on upgraded into a Middle School. The petitioner was granted I.A trained pay scale and promoted as the Officiating Headmaster of the aforesaid upgraded Middle School by an order dated 15.2.1973 passed by Respondent No. 2 (Annexure 1). After some intervening transfers, the petitioner was ultimately transferred to Ram Nagina Pandey Middle School, Arrah, on , 9.9.1974 by the order of Respondent No. 2 (Annexure 2). The petitioner was also directed to Act, as the Officiating Headmaster of the said school as there was no other teacher having higher qualification than Metric trained in that school. By an order dated 22.10.1974 passed by Respondent No.2, the petitioner was allowed B. A. trained pay scale on the basis of his seniority and efficiency with effect from 1.11.1974 (Annexure 4). The petitioner has claimed that this higher pay scale was sanctioned to him on the basis of his being the senior-most teacher according to the list approved by the Director, Public Instruction (Primary Education), Bihar for the year 1973. Thereafter the petitioner is said to have received some adverse orders against him. The first adverse order is dated 5.11.1974 (Annexure 5) passed by the Respondent No.1 by which the petitioner was directed to hand over charge of the office of the Headmaster to one Sri Krishna Behari Mishra, who was reinstated as the Headmaster, as the petitioner had no substantive right to hold the post. Although the petitioner had challenged this order passed by Respondent No.1, no rule was issued by this Court at the time of admission of this application. Although the petitioner had challenged this order passed by Respondent No.1, no rule was issued by this Court at the time of admission of this application. It appears that respondent No.1 by his order dated 6.11.1974 passed another adverse order against the petitioner canceling the I.A. trained and B.A. trained pay scales granted to him which was communicated by Respondent No. 2 by order dated 11.11.1974 (Annexure 6). 3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the order contained in Annexure 6 is wholly without jurisdiction and illegal. In the impugned order it has been stated that the aforesaid Ram Nagina Pandey Middle School was a non-Municipal School and an unit of the development scheme. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner was appointed initially as an Assistant teacher in 1968 by the Chairman of the Arrah Municipality and was allowed higher pay scale, firstly of the I.A. trained and subsequently of the B.A. trained and, therefore, by transferring the petitioner to a non-Municipal Middle School, he could not be deprived of his right to get the higher pay scale when that had already been sanctioned by the Municipal authorities themselves on account of the requisite qualification possessed by the petitioner. It has been further directed in the impugned order (Annexure 6) that the petitioner would revert back to his old post after handing over charge. It has already been said above that by an order dated 15.2.1973 passed by Respondent No. 2 (Annexure 1), the petitioner was granted I.A. trained pay scale before he was transferred to Ram Nagina Pandey Middle School Arrah, by the order dated 19.9.1974 of Respondent No. 2 (Annexure 2). Of course, he was granted B.A. trained pay scale by an order dated 22.10.1974 passed by respondent No. 2 (Annexure 4) while he was posted in Ram Nagina Pandey Middle School, Arrah. By the order contained in Annexure 6, the petitioner has again been directed to hand over charge and join the original place of his posting. Of course, he was granted B.A. trained pay scale by an order dated 22.10.1974 passed by respondent No. 2 (Annexure 4) while he was posted in Ram Nagina Pandey Middle School, Arrah. By the order contained in Annexure 6, the petitioner has again been directed to hand over charge and join the original place of his posting. In my opinion, there does not appear to be any reason as to why the Municipal authorities should not honour and respect their own earlier orders sanctioning higher pay scale to the petitioner without any fault on his part, simply because when at the time when the order of the District Education Officer is said to have be on passed on 6.11.1974, reference of which has been made in Annexure 6, the petitioner happened to be serving in a non-Municipal school. 4. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No. 1, it has however, been stated that the Sub-Divisional Education Officer-cum Municipal Education officer (Respondent No. 2) who sanctioned the B.A trained pay scale to the petitioner by his order dated 22.10.1974 (Annexure 4) was not competent in law to sanction the said pay scale. Respondent No.2, however, has not appeared in the present case. The Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act, contains a comprehensive provision under Chapter Xl for controlling education within the Municipal limits. It is not disputed that the salaries etc. of the teachers appointed in the. Municipal schools are to be paid out of the Municipal fund. On a reference to the provisions under Chapter XI of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act, it appears that a Municipality has been vested with the duty to control its educational institutions with in its jurisdiction and a very limited power has been vested in the officers of the Education Department. There could be, therefore, no justification whatsoever for the District Education Officer (Respondent No.1) to issue any direction to respondent No.2, the Sub-Divisional Education Officer-cum-Municipal Education Officer, Arrah, to cancel the pay scale of I. A. trained and B.A. trained of the petitioner. I have already indicated earlier that the petitioner was sanctioned I.A. trained pay scale while he was posted in a Municipal school. I have already indicated earlier that the petitioner was sanctioned I.A. trained pay scale while he was posted in a Municipal school. In support of the statement made in the counter-affidavit that respondent No. 2 was not a competent authority to sanction the B.A. trained pay scale to the petitioner, no material has been brought before this Court on which any final decision can be taken to deprive the petitioner of the B.A. trained pay scale either, save and except the bare statement made in the counter-affidavit. On a discussion of the entire matter, I feel satisfied that the order dated 6.11.1974 passed by the District Education Officer (Respondent No 1) canceling the I.A. trained and B.A. trained pay scale payable to the petitioner is wholly without jurisdiction and illegal. 5. I would, accordingly, allow this application and quash the order contained in Annexure “6”. Let a writ of certiorari be issued accordingly. In the circumstances of the case, however, there shall be no order as to costs. 6. Before parting, however, I would like to observe and make it clear that it will be open to the Municipal authorities to examine as to whether the order of Respondent No. 2 passed on 22.10.1974 (Annexure 4), by which the petitioner was granted B.A. trained pay scale was in any way unauthorised and invalid. If that be so, they may take appropriate steps in this regard and pass necessary order after giving the petitioner reasonable opportunity of being heard. Application allowed.