Judgment S. B. Sanyal, Aftab Alain, JJ. 1. The main question involved in this writ petition is whether there could be transfer of teachers from Rural to urban area and vice-versa in an elementary school. 2. The petitioner sought for quashing an order of transfer dated 18-8-90 posting him from Rural to Urban area as Headmaster of Middle school, krishna Nagar Sahibganj, as also for issuance of a direction to withhold transfer till a combined gradation list on the basis of seniority is made, by a supplementary affidavit the petitioner has challenged the amalgamation of the cadres and transferability of the teachers vide order dated 30th March 1984 (Annexure 5 ). 3. In this connection our attention has been drawn to an unreported division Bench decision of this Court in Bilat Jha V/s. State of Bihar, c. W. J. C. No.2901 of 1981 disposed of on 4th October, 1983 (Annexure 2 ). The amalgamation of cadres of the teachers of Urban and Rural Elementary schools was sought to be achieved by issuing an executive order. This court while quashing the amalgation order observed. ". . . . . . It the impugned orders had been authenticated according to the Constitutional provisions there would have been no difficulty in rejecting the stand of the petitioners, but the letters, as we have stated earlier, do not purport to have been issued by the state Government. " their Lordships while concluding observed. ". . . . . . We, however, make it clear that after the State Government takes a decision in this regard, appropriate orders may be passed by it, but only in accordance with the Act. " 4. Learned counsel has also relied upon an order of this Court in shivanarayan Mahto and others V/s. The State of Bihar and others, C. W. J. C. No.3428 of 1988, disposed of on 8-2-1989 (Annexure 3 wherein the validity of an order of transfer was under challenge. In that case transfers were sought on request by some lady teachers as also some other employees, Their lordships held that the same cannot be entertained by the District Education establishment Committee, but in cases of hardship of women employees the director can look into the request made. In that case transfers were sought on request by some lady teachers as also some other employees, Their lordships held that the same cannot be entertained by the District Education establishment Committee, but in cases of hardship of women employees the director can look into the request made. An additional reason was also assigned by observing that since a writ petition (C. W. J. C. No.2204 of 1984) was pending as to the power of transfer from Urban area to Municipal area, transfer of teachers working in the Municipal area and vice-versa, be restricted to the respective cadres notwithstanding the fact that a circular dated 30th March, 1984, permits transfer beyond Rural area to Urban area. This case, therefore, is not an authority on the issue, which we are called upon to decide in this case. Further, this order has not noticed an unreported bench decision of this Court in Laxmi Narayan Mahto V/s. State of Bihar c. W. J. C. No.2513 of 1985, disposed of on 8-7-1985, where this question directly fell for consideration. 5. Bilat Jhas case (supra) is no more relevant in view of issuance of government notification duly authenticated in exercise of power conferred under Sec.8 of the Bihar Non-Government Elementary Schools (Taking over Control) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). By the notificntion the State Government unified the two cadres, municipal and urban, and expanded the area of transfer of the teachers of ail the schools taken over under the Act. Sec.4 (2) of the Act lays dows that every officer, teachers or other employees of taken over schools shall be deemed to have been transferred to and become officers, teachers or employees of the State Government and that they would hold office by the same tenure, remuneration and terms and conditions. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner has become a Government servant. Prior to the take over, the transfer of teachers working in the municipal areas was confined to municipal limits and similarly transfer of teachers working in the rural areas was confined to rural areas. 7. The notification dated 30-3-1984 reads as follows :passing reference can be made to the fact that the Government has already framed rules under Sec.7 of the Act, but the legality and operativeness of the rules have been questioned, because they have not been laid before both the Houses of Legislature. 7. The notification dated 30-3-1984 reads as follows :passing reference can be made to the fact that the Government has already framed rules under Sec.7 of the Act, but the legality and operativeness of the rules have been questioned, because they have not been laid before both the Houses of Legislature. The matter is stated to be pending consideration of a Full Bench. 9. The principle of laying the rules before the Legislature has been the subject-matter of interpretation both by English and Indian Courts. The requirement that the rules and regulations shall be laid before the Legislature takes different forms in various statutes, namely, laying before the Legislature with no further direction, laying with provision that the regulation shall not operate until approved, laying any draft for a certain number of days, laying any draft with the provision that the regulation is not to operate till the draft has been approved by the Legislature and also the form adopted in section 7 (ii), which reads as follows : " (ii) Every rule made under this section shall be laid as soon as may be after it is made, before each Houses of the State Legislature while it is in session for a total period of fourteen days which may be comprised in one session or in two successive sessions, and if, before expiry of the session immediately following both the Houses agree in making any modification in the rule or both the Houses agree that the rule should not be made the rule shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be, so however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that rule. " The words "any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under the rule" are very significant. We may make a passing reference to the case of Jan Mohammad v. State oj Gujrat, AIR 1966 SC 385 at 394, where the apex court held that even though it is true that the Legislature had prescribed that the rule shall be placed before the House of Legislature, but failure to place the rule before the House of Legislature does not affect the validity of the rules merely because they had not been placed before the House. Cluster of cases have veered round this point. We stop at that. 10. In the case of Laxminarayan Mahto (supra) the Bench comprising uday Singh and N. Ahmad, JJ. held. ". . . . . . the horizon has now wideneced. The teacher instead of being a municipal teacher is now a Government teacher. Thus, the State government can undoubtedly transfer an erstwhile municipal employee to any area, being municipal area or rural area. " Even though their Lordships have not expressed in so many words, it is manifest that the executive instruction amalgamation the cadres, which was struck down n Bilat Jhas case lost all its relevance after iss uance of the notification by the State Government on 30th March 1984. A Bench of this Court of which T am a member had occasion to consider and follow the judgment in Laxmi Narayan Mahtos case in C. W. J. C. No.6077 of 1989, Dushyant Pd. Arya V/s. State of Bihar and others, vide order dated 2-2-1990 while vacating an order of stay of transfer in similar circumstances. 11 An impression is generally created that all Government orders issued under Sec.8 of the Act were struck down in the case of Krishnadeo misra V/s. State of Bihar and others AIR 1988 Patna 9 (FB) 1987 BLJ 787 (FB)which is not correct. This notification amalgamating rural and urban cadres and transferability was never under challenge. The Full Bench decision in the case of Krishnadeo Misra Struck down such circulars which were conflicting and contradictory in relation to disciplinary matters. In order to avoid issuance of such Government instructions. The Full Bench observed. ". . . . . . Once it is held as above that Sec.8 cannot be camouflaged as the fountain held for the purpose of framing rules or statutory instructions, it is self evident that the contradictory and jumbled directions given by Annexures 2, 7, 10 and 11 without any coherence and showing a complete absence if any larger scheme or method or consistency are unsustainable in the eye of law. All the them are, therefore, struck down hereby. 12. Tn the case of Sant Ram Sharma V/s. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1967 SC 1910 , it was held that if the rules are silent on any particular point Government can fill up the gaps and supplement the rules and issue instructions not inconsistent with the rules already framed. All the them are, therefore, struck down hereby. 12. Tn the case of Sant Ram Sharma V/s. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1967 SC 1910 , it was held that if the rules are silent on any particular point Government can fill up the gaps and supplement the rules and issue instructions not inconsistent with the rules already framed. We see no reason why in exercise of the power under Sec.8 of the Act the notification dated 30th March 1984 cannot be issued to remove the difficulty. We do not find any change in the condition of service by issuance of the said notification, but only the area of transfer of elementary teachers has been expanded. 13. We, therefore, find no merit in this writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Writ petition dismissed.