J.M.Srivastava,J.— This petition under Article 226 of the Constitu­tion of India assails resolution dated 21.1.89 (Annexure El) and the order dated 22.2.89 (Annexure E2) and seeks direction to the respondents to act upon the order dated 15.3.88 (Annexure C) for appointment of the petitioner against the post sanctioned for the C. M. Balika M. E. School, hareinafter referred as the 'CM. School'. 2. The petitioner was a graduate in Arts and had been appointed Assistant Teacher on honorary basis in CM School, Mukalmua in the district of Nalbari by the Managing Committee of the said school as per its resolution dated 7.6.86 (Annexure Al) communicated to her by the Headmistress of the School on 25.6.86 (Annexure A2). The petitioner was working in the said school since 30.6.86. The Deputy Inspector of Schools, Nalbari on 18.11.87 had submitted particulars of additional teachers to be appointed in eleven M.E. Schools including the C.M. School with the particulars of the petitioner (Annexure B). There were five sanctioned posts of Assistant Teacher in the said school. In addition to the said posts, one new post against which the petitioner had been working was created in the CM School along with ten posts in nine different schools in the district with offset from 1.2.88, by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam by order dated 1'.3.88 (Annexure C). The petitioner expected appointment against the post sanctioned for the CM School where she had been working since 1986. The petitioner submitted representation Annexure D, but she was not appointed. The petitioner, to her surprise learnt that the post sanctioned for CM School against which she had been working in expectation of appoint­ment, had been withdrawn and re-allocated along with other posts to different schools by the Sub-Divisional Planning Council, Nalbari by its resolution dated 21.1.89 and letter dated 22.2.89 (Annexure El and E2). The petitioner's contention is that the aforesaid resolution of the Sub-Divisional Planning Council, was without jurisdiction and illegal because the said Sub-Divisional Planning Council had no such authority to override the order dated 15th March, 1988 passed by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam. Hence the petition, ?. The petitioner's contention is that the aforesaid resolution of the Sub-Divisional Planning Council, was without jurisdiction and illegal because the said Sub-Divisional Planning Council had no such authority to override the order dated 15th March, 1988 passed by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam. Hence the petition, ?. The respondent No.4 Senior Planning Officer, Nalbari filed amdavit-in-opposition, and submitted that the Director of Elementary Education had issued the order dated 15th March, 1988 against the direction of the Sub-Divisional Planning Council, hereinafter referred as the 'Council' which had been set up by the Government of Assam, as per instruction in the government letter dated 24.12.87, and the Council had the authority to take action in the matter. The Council had selected nine schools for eleven posts of Assistant Teachers app­roved by the Council in the Annual Operation Plan, 1987-88, which had been forwarded to the District Elementary Education Officer (resp­ondent No. 3) by letter dated 18.12.87 for onward submission to the Director of Elementary Education, Assam (respondent No. 2). The Director of Elementary Education had in violation of the instruction, included 'CM School' in the order of sanction allocating the eleven sanctioned posts. Accordingly, when it came to the notice of the Council, the allocation done by the Director of Elementary Education was changed and the allocation was made in conformity with the earlier resolution of the Council. It was further submitted that the Council in its sitting with Hon'ble Speaker (Legislative Assembly), Chairman of the Planning Council had taken necessary decision to reallocate the sanctioned posts. It was accordingly stated that there was no merit in the petition. 4. We have heard Sri A. H. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.D. Das, learned counsel for the respondents. We also requested Sri P.G. Baruah, learned Advocate General, Assam to appear in the matter and we have also heard him. 5. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner was appointed in an honorary capacity to work as teacher in the C. M. School. The Deputy Inspector of Schools, Nalbari by letter dated 18.11.87 had forwarded to the District Elementary Education Officer, Guwahati the statement of particulars of additional teachers to be appointed in various schools under Nalbari Sub-division, which iucluded one additional post in the C. M. School and the name of the petitioner was shown as working against the non-sanctioned post with effect from 26.6.86. The Director of Elementary Education, Assam by order dated 15th March, 1988 (Annexure C) sanctioned eleven new posts and allocated the same as per the statement annexed with the said order, at serial No. 9 whereof one post created, was shown against the C. M. School. The petitioner made representation dated 1.6.88 (Annexure D) for appointment against the newly sanctioned post. 6. The Planning Council vide Annexure El dated 21.1.89 changed the allocation of sanctioned posts for schools in Annexure C the order dated 15th March, 1988, which shows that eight posts were re-allocated and for the remaining three, the matter was taken up by letter dated 22.2.89 (Annexure E2). 7. The resolution, Annexure El, and letter dated 22,2.89, Annexure E2 make it clear that the post which had been sanctioned for the school, i.e. CM School had been withdrawn and allocated to some other school. 8. The question which arises for consideration is of considerable importance in that the petitioner has questioned the competence and jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Planning and Development Council to alter the allocation of post to the school sanctioned by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam. 9. The contention of the respondents was that the Sub-Divisional Planning Council had been constituted under orders dated 24.12.87 issued by the Government of Assam in the Planning and Development Department, copy at Annexure 1 with the affidavit-in-opposition, which laid down the procedure for sanction, etc. of tie posts to the schools and other activities. 10. Sri B.D. Das, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 submi­tted that the said high powered Council of which the Hon'ble Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, Assam was the Chairman had proposed allocation .of posts to be sanctioned and as such it was improper on the part of the Director of Elementary Education not to act in conformity with the direction of the Council which had been in accordance with the instruction of the Government, and as such later the Council had made the necessary re-allocation of posts. 11. Sri P.G. Baruah, learned Advocate General, has cited State of Bihar vi. Kripalu Shaokar, AIR 1987 SC 1554, and has submitted that the action taken by the Council could not be said to be without jurisdiction or not in conformity with the provisions of the Constitution. 12. The question raised pertains to exercise of executive power of the State. 13. Sri P.G. Baruah, learned Advocate General, has cited State of Bihar vi. Kripalu Shaokar, AIR 1987 SC 1554, and has submitted that the action taken by the Council could not be said to be without jurisdiction or not in conformity with the provisions of the Constitution. 12. The question raised pertains to exercise of executive power of the State. 13. The order for creation of posts dated 15.3.88 of the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, Annexure C was not cancelled or withdrawn by the Government of Assam. 14. Article 154 of the Constitution of India provides that the executive power of the State shall be vested in the Governor and shall be exercised by him either directly or through officers subordinate to him in accordance with the Constitution. It should be clear from the above provision that the executive power of the State has to be exer­cised by the Governor either directly or through officers subordinate to him and the exercise of power has to be in accordance with the Constitution. 15. Article 166 of the Constitution provides for conduct of business of the Government of a State, and lays down that all executive action of the Government of a State shall be expressed to be taken in the name of the Governor. Its clause (2) provides that orders and other instru­ments made and executed in the name of the Governor shall be authen­ticated in such manner as may be specified in rules to be made by the Governor, and the validity of an order or instrument which is so authenticated s'-:all not be called in question on the ground that it is not an order or instrument made or executed by the Governor. Its clause (3) provides that the Governor shall make rules for the more convenient transaction of the business of the Government of the State and for the allocation among Ministers of the said business in so far it is not business with respect to which the Governor is by or under the Constitution required to acts in his discretion. 16. Its clause (3) provides that the Governor shall make rules for the more convenient transaction of the business of the Government of the State and for the allocation among Ministers of the said business in so far it is not business with respect to which the Governor is by or under the Constitution required to acts in his discretion. 16. It requires no clarification that all executive action of the Government of the State has to be taken in the name of the Governor and for more convenient transaction of the business of the Govern­ment, the Governor has made rules for the allocation of business among Ministers, which provide the framework for exercise of executive power of the State at various levels. An action expressed to have been taken in the name of the Governor and duly authenticated according to authe­ntication rules cannot be called in question on the ground that it was not an order or instrument made or executed by the Governor where an action taken is not so expressed, it does not become invalid and it can still be shown that the action was taken by the Governor or the appro­priate authority as prescribed in the aforesaid allocation of business and transaction of business Rules, in the latter case the burden shall always be on the Government to produce the materials to show that the decision or action was taken in accordance with the Constitu­tion i.e. the aforesaid provisions of Article 166 of the Constitution. It should follow that any action which has not been taken by the Governor or by officer subordinate to him in accordance with the aforesaid rules framed in pursuance of Article 166 of the Constitution of India cannot be sustained as in accordance with the Constitution. 17. It should follow that any action which has not been taken by the Governor or by officer subordinate to him in accordance with the aforesaid rules framed in pursuance of Article 166 of the Constitution of India cannot be sustained as in accordance with the Constitution. 17. In State of Rajasthan vs. Sripal Jain, AIR 1963 SC 1323 at page 1326, the Supreme Court observed that "it is well settled that any defect of farm in the order by Government would not necessarily make it illegal and the only consequence of the order not being in proper form as required by Article 166 is that the burden is thrown on the Government to show mat, the order was in fact passed by it." While therefore an order not expressed in proper form may b; shown to have been made in accordance with the provisions of the Constitu­tion, there should be no doubt that an order that is executive action, has to be shown to have been meds in accordance with r-he procedure laid down in the Constitution. In State of Bihar (supra) the question was whether the State could be said to have committed contempt, because of views expressed in notes on the file of the Government and it was held that mere nothings on the file were not order of the Govern­ment. As a matter of fact State of Bihar (supra) is in support of the view we take that an order of the Government or executive action has to be in accordance with Article 166 of the Constitution. 18. It may not be out of place to emphasise that all those who exercise executive power of the State must always remember that they have to do so within the parameters laid down by the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land and no one how so ever high in rank or status can act in a manner which is not in conformity with the provisions of the Constitution. 19. Annexure C dated 15th March, 1988 was an order made by tire Director of Elementary Education, Assam an authority subordinate to the Governor in accordance with the Constitution, i.e, the provisions of the .aforesaid rules. It has not been disputed on behalf of the respondents that the order had been so made. 20. 19. Annexure C dated 15th March, 1988 was an order made by tire Director of Elementary Education, Assam an authority subordinate to the Governor in accordance with the Constitution, i.e, the provisions of the .aforesaid rules. It has not been disputed on behalf of the respondents that the order had been so made. 20. While it is true that Annexure 1 with the affidavit-in-opposition was a letter by the Special Secretary to the Government of Assam for the constitution of Sub-divisional level boards or committees and also how they were to function and what they were supposed to do, yet it should be clear that this order was not in replacement of the provisions of the transaction of business Rules framed by the Governor. We had specifically requested the learned Advocate General to place before us some material to show that the Sub-divisional Planning Board or Council which has modified or altered the order of the Director o f Elementary Education at Annexure C had the necessary competence authority under the rules framed in exercise of powers under the Constitution, but no such material was placed before us. It may also be noted that although the Senior Planning Officer in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari has sworn the affidavit-in-opposition, the State of Assam has not even filed an affidavit-in-opposition. We, therefore, think that said Annexure I dated 24th December, 1987 was only an executive order or instruction which for the purpose under consideration obviously was not in conformity with the allocation of business and the transaction of business Rules framed under clause (3) of Article 166 of the Constitution and therefore could not or cannot, in our opinion, override the aforesaid rules and consequently the exercise of power by the authorities subordinate to the Governor in accordance with the said rules could not and cannot be subject to alteration or change or modification, etc. on the authority of the impugned resolu­tion Annexure El and letter Annexure E2. Annexure C order dated 15.3.88 had sanctioned one post for the CM School where the petitioner was working as an honorary teacher and in normal course the petitioner should have been appointed to the aforesaid post, if the said post had not been re-allocated to another school by the impugned resolution Annexure E>1 and the letter Annexure E2. Annexure C order dated 15.3.88 had sanctioned one post for the CM School where the petitioner was working as an honorary teacher and in normal course the petitioner should have been appointed to the aforesaid post, if the said post had not been re-allocated to another school by the impugned resolution Annexure E>1 and the letter Annexure E2. The petitioner also has filed Annexure X' a letter by the Head Mistress of the School for approval of the appointment of the petitioner in view of the qualifi­cations and Annexure Y dated 10.7.86 copy of an order by the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Nalbari to show that approval had been accorded by the aforesaid authority to the appointment of the petitioner. The petitioner as such was holding an appointment which had been approved by the authority and in due course she would have been normally appointed to the said post. 21. We have, therefore, no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the impugned action taken at the instance of the Council to be allocate the post which had been sanctioned for a school specified in the order of the Director of Elementary Education dated 15th March, 1988 (Annexure C) was illegal and cannot be sustained, and has, therefore, to be set aside. . 22. The petition is allowed. The impugned action by Annexure E 1 and E 2 to the petition in so far as it relates to re-allocation of the post for the CM Balika M.E. School (sanctioned as per order of the Director of Elementary Education, Assam dated 15.3.88 (Annexure C) is quashed. 23. We, however, leave the parties to bear their costs.