Judgment S. Ali Ahmad, J. 1. This case was directed to be heard along with C. W. J. C. No.1522 of 1977 and 1523 of 1977 for the sake of the convenience and on the request of the parties, has been heard separately. 2. This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India. The prayer is to quash Annexure "4" an order dated 12th of July, 1977 passed by the Director of Education (Schools), by which the promotion of the petitioner to the cadre of Upper Division of the Bihar subordinate Educational Service made on 12th August, 1975 has been cancelled in view of the Petitioners appointment to Lower Division of the bihar Subordinate Educational Service, in violation of rule 802 of the Bihar education Code. 3. The Petitioner, a graduate in Arts, was appointed to act as an assistant Mistress in the Lower Division of Subordinate Educational Service by the then Director of Public Instructions, Bihar. The petitioner, after her appointment, passed Diploma-in-Education examination in the year 1967 and thereafter, she was confirmed by order dated 11-2-1975 with effect from 18-3-1958. Subsequently she was promoted by the then Director of Education (Schools)to the Cadre of Upper Division in the Subordinate Education Service by the annexure 3 which was subsequently cancelled by Annexure 4 has been noticed above, Annexure "4" is sought to be quashed. 4. There is no counter-affidavit in this case. It appears that the promotion of the petitioner was cancelled on the ground that at the tune of her appointment she was not trained and that this shortcoming was not regularised by the Director, as required under Rule 802 of the Bihar Education Code. In this case, the appointment itself was made by the then Director of Education. In the case of Srimati Rukmani Sinha V/s. State, (CWJC No.1542 of 1977 decided on 23rd January, 1978) I have held that if appointment is made by the Director himself then it has to be necessarily implied that he had relaxed the provisions of rule 802 of the Bihar Education Code. That proposition fully applies to the fact of the case as the appointing authority in this case also was the Director himself. In that view of the matter there was no violation of rule 802 of the Bihar Education Code and the appointment of the petitioner was fully valid. That proposition fully applies to the fact of the case as the appointing authority in this case also was the Director himself. In that view of the matter there was no violation of rule 802 of the Bihar Education Code and the appointment of the petitioner was fully valid. The ground, therefore, for cancelling the promotion of the Petitioner to the cadre of Upper division in the Subordinate Educational Service is quashed and the application is allowed with costs, hearing fee Rs.60. Petition allowed.