JUDGMENT : S.B. Sanyal, J. This is an application for quashing Annexure-1 by which the petitioner was directed to hand over charge of the post of Principal, M.J.K. College, Bettiah to the senior most teacher and the staff of M.J.K. College, Bettiah, and pending his subsequent posting to report to the Vice-Chancellor (Annexure-1). It may be stated here that this ORDER :has been issued by the Registrar, Bihar University, Muzaffarpur on the directive of the Chancellor as contained in the wireless message dated 6th March, 1986. 2. Facts: The petitioner was originally appointed as Principal of R.P.S. College, Jaintpur, Muzaffarpur. Thereafter, he was transferred to Bettiah College. The petitioner went out of the University for a period 1983 to 1986. On his return from foreign service, the Vice-Chancellor posted him as Principal, M.J.K. College, Bettiah, by transferring Dr. S.S. Mishra, the present incumbent to L.N. Tirhut College, Muzaffarpur. The petitioner, pursuant to the ORDER :of the Vice-Chancellor (Annexure-2) joined the post of Principal at Bettiah on 18.2.1986 (Annexure-3). Thereafter, the Chancellor stayed the transfer of Dr. Sita Saran Mishra, the then incumbent of M.J.K. College, by issuance of a wireless message to the Vice-Chancellor (Annexure-4). The stay, however, was vacated within a week i.e. 28.2.1986 (Annexure-5) stating that the decision of the University does not require interference from the Chancellor. On 1.3.1986 the University restored its original ORDER :of 15.2.1986 and directed its compliance by the concerned person (Annexure-6). It also appears that as per direction of the Chancellor the University asked Dr. S.S. Mishra to report for duty as Principal, L.N.T. College, Muzaffarpur (Annexure-7). Thereafter the impugned Annexure-1 had been issued asking the petitioner to report to the Vice-Chancellor for his posting after handing over charge of the Principal-ship of the College at Bettiah to the senior most teacher. 3. Mr. B.C. Ghose, senior Advocate, has contended that the Chancellor has no power to issue a direction of the kind impugned under the Bihar University Act, 1976 and assuming he is vested with such a power there has been an abuse thereof by issuance of Annexure-1. Mr. 3. Mr. B.C. Ghose, senior Advocate, has contended that the Chancellor has no power to issue a direction of the kind impugned under the Bihar University Act, 1976 and assuming he is vested with such a power there has been an abuse thereof by issuance of Annexure-1. Mr. Indu Shekhar Prasad Singh, appearing on behalf of the Vice-Chancellor, has contended that the University has not violated any guideline issued by the Chancellor in exercise of its power under section 10(14) of the Act being inferior in hierarchy to that of the Chancellor it has carried out the direction of the Chancellor issued from time to time. Mr. Ojha, appearing on behalf of the Registrar, watched the proceeding of the Court. 4. Mr. Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the Chancellor, on the other hand, submitted that under section 9(1) of the Act, the Chancellor is head of the University as also the President of the Senate. Apart from the powers conferred upon him under section 9 of the Act, the Vice-Chancellor is required to conform to the guideline approved by the Chancellor in the matter of transfer of the employees of the University. According to him the Chancellor has the right to issue guideline from time to time as well, depending upon administrative exigencies as also for excellence of education in the University. In the present case, according to the learned Advocate General, two persons having sought to cling to the post of principal-ship of Bettiah College, the Chancellor, in his wisdom, decided that none of them should be the Principal of the said College. The Chancellor therefore, directed Dr. Mishra to join as the Principal of a College at Muzaffarpur and directed the petitioner to report to the Vice-Chancellor for a proper posting. He, therefore, submitted that the Chancellor has favoured none. Therefore, the argument that there has been abuse of power is groundless. 5. Under Section 9(4)(ka) of the Act Chancellor is conferred with powers to annul any proceeding or ORDER :of the University which is not in conformity with the Act, the Statute, the Ordinance or the Regulation or for which adequate reason is lacking. This power is of wide amplitude but for the exercise of this power the Chancellor is required to call upon the University to show cause within specified time why the proposed direction should not be made. This power is of wide amplitude but for the exercise of this power the Chancellor is required to call upon the University to show cause within specified time why the proposed direction should not be made. Section 10 deals with the power of Vice-Chancellor. Section 10 (14) deals with the matter of transfer of employees of the University. The Vice-Chancellor for the exercise of jurisdiction under section 10 (14) has to abide by approved guideline of the Chancellor. Learned Counsel appearing for the Vice-Chancellor has submitted that such guideline have been issued earlier and there has been no violation of the guideline by the Vice-Chancellor in issuing the ORDER :dated 15.2.1986 and/or restoring the said ORDER :by the ORDER :dated 1.3.1986 (Annexure-6). Mr. Ghose, on the other hand, submitted that section 10 (14) envisaged that the guideline has to be prepared by the University which should be approved by the Chancellor and on such approval the transfer of the employees of the University would be made in consonance with the aforesaid guideline. According to Mr. Ghose, section 10(14) does not confer power upon the Chancellor to keep on issuing guideline in individual cases. Thus, the direction issued as contained in Annexure-1 has no source of power under the Act. I do not think that Mr. Ghose is correct in submitting that under section 10(14) the guideline has to be prepared by the University which has to be approved by the Chancellor and once that is done the Chancellor cannot issue any further guideline in a situation requiring his guidance. Section 10 (14) cannot be construed narrowly. In my opinion, a person who is conferred with the power to approve a guideline has implicit power to lay down guideline as well. I am also of the view that once a guideline have been approved by an authority, such an authority is not exhausted of its power to lay down further guideline in a situation calling for guidance. The authority is also not exhausted of its power to amend the guideline if the situation so needs. In the instant case, there was a clamour for the post of the Principal-ship of Bettiah College by a person who had been away on foreign service for about three years and a person holding the said post otherwise competent, for a period of three years. In the instant case, there was a clamour for the post of the Principal-ship of Bettiah College by a person who had been away on foreign service for about three years and a person holding the said post otherwise competent, for a period of three years. Whether the petitioner bad a lien to the post having been transferred to the said post from the other College is highly debatable. In ORDER :to put an end to the fight between these two rival Principals for one post which may affect the educational atmosphere of the College, if the Chancellor guided the Vice-Chancellor to disperse them from that College without affecting their status by transferring them, I do not find such guidance by the Chancellor to the University is an abuse of a power conferred upon Chancellor. The Chancellor has not favoured any of the persons, laying claim on the post of Principal-ship of Bettiah College. The argument that direction of this kind to the University by the Chancellor in individual cases would amount to usurpation of the day to day administration of the University business also does not appeal to me. The action taken by the Chancellor will be deemed to be a guideline in a situation of the kind that has arisen in this case', for future guidance of the University i.e. in a case when there are rival claimants for a particular post, it may be prudent in larger interest of the Institution to maintain academic atmosphere to resort to such a course. I must say that the Vice-Chancellor has not violated any existing guideline. The Vice-Chancellor however, is required to abide by and implement such decision of the Chancellor as and when issued in cases of transfer by treating it as a guideline for its compliance. I do not find that Annexure-1 is bad and in-operative in view of lack of power of the Chancellor and/or abuse of power. 6. Mr. Ghose, lastly, contended that it is mysterious as to what passed in the mind of the Chancellor after he vacated the ORDER :of stay in issuing Annexure-1, Annexure-7 itself indicates that Dr. S.S. Mishra, the rival Principal, had already, moved the Chancellor for cancelling his transfer to L.T. College which was refused by the Chancellor on 10.3.1986 itself, the date when Annexure-1 was issued. S.S. Mishra, the rival Principal, had already, moved the Chancellor for cancelling his transfer to L.T. College which was refused by the Chancellor on 10.3.1986 itself, the date when Annexure-1 was issued. In absence of any allegation of malafide and/or materials there for placed before the Court it will not be prudent on the part of the Court to probe about the materials before the authority in passing an ORDER :which is within its jurisdiction. I, therefore, do not find substance in this contention as well. 7. In the result, the writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. But, there will be no ORDER :as to costs. Application dismissed.