By Court : This writ application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for quashing an order dated 25.8.1977, passed by the District Superintendent of Education with prior approval of the Regional Deputy Director of Education transferring the petitioner from Maiden Adarsh Middle School, Danapur to Middle School, Nasriganj, Danapur. A copy of the said order is Annexure 5 to the writ petition. 2. According to the case of the petitioner, he joined the aforesaid Maiden School, Danapur, on 17.8.1969 as Matric trained Assistant teacher. By an order dated 21.5.1975, passed by the Subdivional Education Officer Danapur, he was promoted as Acting Head-master of this school. By another order dated 4.2.1976, passed by the Chairman of Danapur Municipality, according to the petitioner, he was made permanent Headmaster of that school. However, by the aforesaid impugned order dated 25.8.1977 he has been transferred from that school. According to the petitioner, this order is illegal, arbitrary and it amounts to reduction in rank of the petitioner. It has been further stated that the petitioner filed Title suit No. 55 of 1977 in the Court of Munsif, Danapur, making a prayer to restrain the defendants from transferring the petitioner in pursuance of the aforesaid older. When the petitioner did not obey the order passed by the District Superintendent of Education, he was put under suspension by an order dated 5.1.1978, a copy whereof is Annexure 9 to the writ application. According to the petitioner, the District Superintendent of Education, who passed the order of suspension had no authority in law. 3. This case was listed before a learned Single Judge of this Court where it was stated that another writ application being C.W.J.C. No. 2328 of 1977 has been referred to Division Bench for consideration as to whether the District Superintendent of Education has got power to transfer a teacher of a Middle School which bas been taken over by the State Government under the provisions of the Bihar Non-Government Elementary Schools (Taking Over of Control) Act, 1976 (Bihar Act 30 of 1976) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). On this statement the learned Judge referred this case as well to a Division Bench. On this statement the learned Judge referred this case as well to a Division Bench. It may be mentioned that the aforesaid C.W.J.C. No. 2328 of 1977 was listed before this Bench and at the time of final hearing another point was urged and the point for which it had been referred to Division Bench was not pressed and on other point that writ application was disposed of. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner firstly submitted that the petitioner was appointed on permanent basis as the Headmaster of the aforesaid Maiden Adarsh Middle, School, Danapur by the Chairman of Danapur Municipality and as such he cannot be transferred to another school as a teacher because that will amount to reduction in rank. The learned Government Pleader has drawn our attention to a judgment of Mr. Justice B. P. Jha In another case being C.W.J.C. No. 2635 of 1976, disposed of on 13.4.1977 which had been filed on behalf of the petitioner and where also this very point had been urged. While dismissing the writ application Mr. Justice B. P. Jha observed that if any vacancy occurs in future, the case of the petitioner should be considered for the post of Headmaster provided he is a senior most Assistant teacher within Danapur Municipality. From this very judgment it appears that even in earlier writ application the petitioner was held to be just an assistant teacher in one of the middle schools of Danapur Municipality and as such there is no question of his becoming a permanent Headmaster on 25.8.1977 when the impugned order of transfer was passed. This Court rejected the claim of the petitioner that he had become a permanent Headmaster by virtue of the order dated 4.2.1976, passed by the Chairman of Danapur Municipality. 5. It was then submitted that the petitioner could not have been transferred from the school to which he had been appointed In purported exercise of the power conferred upon the District Superintendent of Education by the instructions dated 15.12.1976 issued by the State Government under section 8 of the said Act. Section 8 of the said Act is as follows :- "8. Section 8 of the said Act is as follows :- "8. Power to remove difficulties: If any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of this Act, the State Government may take such action or pass such order as appears to it necessary for the purposes of removing the difficulty." This section vests power in the State Government to take such action or pass such order as would appear to it necessary or the purposes of removing the difficulty. In purported exercise of the power conferred by this section the aforesaid instruction dated 15.12.1976 has been issued, indicating the procedures regarding appointment, promotion, transfer etc. Some further instructions on those subjects have been issued by the State Government, copies whereof have been filed on behalf of the State. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner urged that these provisions should have been included in a statutory rule framed under section 7 of the said Act. It is difficult to accept this contention. It is always open to State Government to issue administrative instructions where there are no specific statutory rules and for all practical purposes these instructions may provide the procedure for appointment, promotion, transfer etc. Reference in this regard can be made to the case of Sant Ram Sharma versus State of Rajasthan and others, at page 1914 in paragraph 7 where it was pointed out that if the rules are silent on any particular point Government can fill up the gaps and supplement the rules and issue inst ructions not inconsistent with the rules already framed. It need not be impressed that after the middle schools in question were taken over by the State Government under the provisions of the Act, the teachers of those schools became the employees of the State Government and the State can issue necessary instructions about their promotion, transfers etc. and it cannot be urged that unless statutory rules are framed, the appointment, promotion and transfer of such teachers have to be kept in abeyance. In our opinion, there is no merit in this submission as wel1. 6. It was then submitted that the petitioner could not have been suspended by the District Superintendent of Education because he has no power under the provisions of the Act or any rules framed thereunder. In our opinion, there is no merit in this submission as wel1. 6. It was then submitted that the petitioner could not have been suspended by the District Superintendent of Education because he has no power under the provisions of the Act or any rules framed thereunder. The petitioner being an employee of the State Government after the schools were taken over by the State, he will be governed by the provisions which are applicable to the other employees of the State. The learned Government Pleader, however, has stated before us that if the petitioner joins the post where be has been transferred, the District Superintendent of Education shall consider the question of withdrawing the order of suspension, which has been passed against him. We expect that the District Superintendent of Education shall withdraw the order of Suspension. If the petitioner joins to the post where he has been transferred. 7. We are informed that some sort of injunction has been granted by the learned Munsif, Danapur, although details whereof have not been stated before us. We are surprised as to how an adinterim injunction in whatever form granted is continuing for about two years. It will be open to the respondents to move to the learned Munsif concerned for withdrawal of the said injunction order in the light of our judgment. 8. This writ application is accordingly dismissed subject to the observations made above. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Application dismissed.