JUDGMENT : A.D. Desai, J. The petitioners were at the date of this petition working as primary teachers in Chithoda Primary School in Taluka Vijayanagar, District Sabarkantha. The petitioners have been working in this school since (sic) for (?) last 3 years. On June 7, 1977 the Administrative Officer of the Education Committee, Sabarkantha, passed an order transferring in all 800 teachers which included the petitioners. The said order of transfer in respect of petitioner No. 2 had been cancelled and a fresh order of transfer dated June 18, 1977 in respect of the said petitioner had been passed by the said officer. The case of the petitioners is that the Director of Education in exercise of the authority under section 24(i) of the Bombay Primary Education Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) issued Instructions to the Administrative Officer. These instructions were issued on June 21, 1974. Under the said circular and instructions the Administrative Officer shall issue orders of transfer as per the decision of the Transfer Committee consisting of the following members : (1) Chairman of the District Panchayat Education Committee; (2) District Development Officer, (3) District Education Officer and (4) Administrative Officer. The Administrative Officer acts as the Secretary of the Committee. The Transfer Committee has to act after taking into consideration the guidelines as laid down in the circular. The Education Officer is responsible for the execution of the orders of the Transfer Committee. It is an admitted fact that the impugned orders of transfer have been passed in pursuance of the decisions taken by the Transfer Committee. The petitioners challenge the transfer orders on the ground that under section 24(1) of the Act the Administrative Officer alone has the power to effect transfers. Under section 24(1) of the Act the Director of Education has the power to issue general instructions to the Administrative Officer but the section does not authorise the Director to substitute a different authority for the Administrative Officer for exercising power under section 24(1) of the Act. The direction in the circular or instructions in so far as they substitute a Transfer Committee in the place of the Administrative Officer are ultra vires the provisions contained in section 24 of the Act. The petitioners do not challenge the norms laid down in the said circular giving guidance as to how the transfer should be effected. The direction in the circular or instructions in so far as they substitute a Transfer Committee in the place of the Administrative Officer are ultra vires the provisions contained in section 24 of the Act. The petitioners do not challenge the norms laid down in the said circular giving guidance as to how the transfer should be effected. Respondent No 1 to the petition is the Administrative Officer and has filed an affidavit stating that the Transfer Committee has been validly empowered to effect transfers. It is stated by him that the Director of Education has the power to issue the impugned circular under section 24 (1) of the Act. 2. The short question which arises for determination is whether the Director of Education has under section 24(1) of the Act power to issue instructions whereby a Transfer Committee is constituted with absolute power to effect transfers and which requires the Administrative Officer to abide by the orders of the Transfer Committee. Now Chapter V of the Act deals with the administrative machinery. Sections 20 to 24 are contained in this Chapter. Section 20 provides that the District School Board shall maintain adequate staff including primary school teachers. The members of the staff so maintained are servants of the District School Board. Section 21 provides that in every school board there shall be an administrative officer, who shall be the Chief Executive Officer of the Board and his powers and duties shall be as prescribed. The Administrative Officer shall be appointed and shall be servant of the State Government and he will draw his pay and allowances from the State revenues. Section 23 provides for staff selection committee. Section 24, which is material, is as under: - "24(1) The administrative officer shall have power, subject to such general instructions as may be issued from time to time by the Director, to promote, transfer and rake all disciplinary action (including removal or dismissal; against the staff maintained under section 20. (2) Any person aggrieved by an order of dismissal, removal, reduction or any other order involving disciplinary action made under sub-section (1), may submit an appeal to a tribunal consisting of the Chairman of the school board and the Educational Inspector of the District. The tribunal shall follow the prescribed procedure for the disposal of Its business. (2) Any person aggrieved by an order of dismissal, removal, reduction or any other order involving disciplinary action made under sub-section (1), may submit an appeal to a tribunal consisting of the Chairman of the school board and the Educational Inspector of the District. The tribunal shall follow the prescribed procedure for the disposal of Its business. In the event of a difference of opinion between the members of the tribunal the appeal shall be referred to the Director whose decision subject to the provisions of this section shall be final: Provided that in the case of a district within the jurisdiction of a district panchayat the tribunal shall consist of the Chairman of the Education Committee of the district panchayat and the Educational Inspector of the district: Provided further that a primary school teacher, who is a guaranteed teachers on the date of the coming into force of this Act, may make a further appeal to the State Government against any order of removal or dismissal. Explanation : - A guaranteed teacher means a primary school teacher who was holding a permanent appointment as such teacher on 30th June, 1923. (3) : An appeal under sub-section (2) shall be made within 30 days from the date on which the order appealed against was communicated to the aggrieved person. (4) : Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, the State Government may call for and examine the record of any order made by the Administrative Officer under sub-section (1) or any order made in appeal by the tribunal or Director under sub-section (2) involving disciplinary action against the staff, maintained under section 20, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness or propriety of the punishment awarded under the said order and, if after causing such inquiry to be made as it deems fit the State Government is of opinion that the said order should be modified, annulled or reversed, the State Government may pass such order thereon as it deems fit : Provided that no such order shall be made by the State Government in revision to the prejudice of any person unless such person has had an opportunity of being heard in his defence." In exercise of rule making power the rules have been framed which are known as the Bombay Primary Education Rules, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Sub-rule (2) of rule 63 of the Rules, so far relevant, provides that the Administrative Officer shall have power to confirm, promote, transfer, censure, fine, withhold increments of, reduce, suspend, remove, or of miss any member of such staff or require him to retire from service, subject to such general instructions as may from time to time, be issued by the Director in this behalf. Bare reading of sub-sect ion (1) of sec. 24 of the Act and rule 63 of the Rules clearly indicates that power to promote, transfer, to take disciplinary action, etc. is by the statute vested in the Administrative Officer. The exercise of power by the Administrative Officer is made subject to such general instructions that the Director of Education may issue from time to time. The Director is authorised to only issue general instructions in the matter of promotion, transfer, etc The words "subject to such general instructions as may be issued from time to time" are important and more particularly the words "general instructions" The Director of Education is authorised only to issue general instructions with regard to the promotion, transfer, etc. The Director of Education is not authorised under the provisions of section 24 (1) of the Act to substitute an authority other than the Administrative Officer to exercise power with regard to promotion, transfer, etc. The power to promote, transfer is conferred by the provisions of section 24(1) of the Act on the Administrative Officer alone. To put in other words, the statutory authority to exercise power to promote or transfer the members of the staff etc is the Administrative Officer. The Director of Education is given authority to issue general instructions in respect of promotion and transfer etc. i.e. he has been given an authority to lay down principles or guideline as to how the Administrative Officer will exercise his power in the matter of promotion, transfer, etc. It may be noted that the Director of Education cannot issue special instructions with regard to promotion, transfer, etc. in respect of a particular individual o; in a particular case. The Director of Education has been given an authority to issue general instructions in the matter of promotion or transfer, etc. The statutory authority to exercise a power in connection with promotion, transfer, disciplinary action, etc. in respect of the staff Is the Administrative Officer. in respect of a particular individual o; in a particular case. The Director of Education has been given an authority to issue general instructions in the matter of promotion or transfer, etc. The statutory authority to exercise a power in connection with promotion, transfer, disciplinary action, etc. in respect of the staff Is the Administrative Officer. This statutory power conferred on the Administrative Officer by the legislature cannot be interfered with by the Director of Education as clear words of the section indicate that the authority of the Director of Education under the said section is limited The Director of Education cannot legislate. In making provisions of the Transfer Committee by issuing the instructions the Director of Education has interfered with the legislative enactment under which power to transfer the staff has been vested in the Administrative Officer. Thus the instruction issued by the Director of Education which substitute the Transfer Committee In the place of the Administrative Officer are to that extent ultra vires his powers and therefore, invalid and illegal. 3. Coming to the facts of the present case, it is admitted that the Impugned orders of transfer of the petitioners have been issued as per the decisions of the Transfer Committee. As pointed out earlier under section 24(1) of the Act the statutory duty to effect transfer vests alone in the Administrative Officer. In the present case the Administrative Officer has abdicated his duty cast upon him by the statute The impugned orders of transfer have admittedly been made by the Transfer Committee, an authority not recognised by the legislative enactment. The Administrative Officer in passing the impugned orders had acted as a mouth-piece of the Transfer Committee. Under the provisions of section 24(1) of the Act the Administrative Officer is required to act In respect of promotion, transfer, disciplinary action, etc. as per his personal judgment and not as a mouth-piece of any authority not recognised by the Statute. It is evident, therefore, that the impugned orders of transfers cannot be sustained. 4. At this stage, when the judgment was being dictated, Mr. Vyas, appearing for respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3, stated that he has instructions' to withdraw the impugned order of transfers. On inquiry by the Court as to the ground for withdrawing the orders, Mr. It is evident, therefore, that the impugned orders of transfers cannot be sustained. 4. At this stage, when the judgment was being dictated, Mr. Vyas, appearing for respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3, stated that he has instructions' to withdraw the impugned order of transfers. On inquiry by the Court as to the ground for withdrawing the orders, Mr. Vyas merely stated that he has been authorised to withdraw and he did not know on what grounds the orders are withdrawn. The petitioners are primary teachers It is not made clear by respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 that they are withdrawing the orders because they are not going to act in future on the instructions dated June 21, 1974 issued by the Director of Education. It was for this reason that this Court has to decide the question as to powers of the Director of Education in issuing the notification dated June 21, 1974 constituting a Transfer Committee to effect transfers. As the impugned orders are now withdrawn it is not necessary to quash the same. It must be noted that the orders have been withdrawn after the full arguments and in such circumstances the petitioners are entitled to the costs from respondents Nos. 1 to 4. Orders accordingly. Appeal allowed.