Judgment : BELLIE, J.: 1. This petition has been filed by one Selvakumaraswamyclaiming him self to be apanel Advocate of Legal Aid Board and states that he has filed this petition on behalf of 43 prisoners who are in various Central Prisons. 2. It is alleged that these prisoners were transferred to borstal school from the prisons but on their attaining the age of 23 years by an order issued by the Inspector General of Prisons dated 15.5.1978 they have been transferred to central prisons. This order of re-transfer is illegal and is in violation of law and the judgments of this High Court. Therefore this petition is filed under Art.226 for issue of an order to release them. 3. As against this the respondents viz., the State Government and the Inspector General of Prisons have filed a counter wherein they contend that the order of re-transfer is not in violation of any law. They submit that these convict prisoners were transferred from prisons to the borstal school under Rule 575 of Tamil Nadu Prison Manual, 1983 and not under Sec. 10 or 10-A of the Madras Borstal Schools Act as stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, and upon their attaining the age of 25 years they have been re-transferred to the central prisons, and therefore there is no illegality committed in the order of retransfer to prisons and hence this petition is not maintainable. 4. It is not in dispute that the prisoners were transferred from prisons to borstal schools by an order of Inspector General of Prisons. The Inspector General of Prisons has been empowered to pass an order under Rule 575 of the Tamil Nadu Prison Manual, 1983. 4. It is not in dispute that the prisoners were transferred from prisons to borstal schools by an order of Inspector General of Prisons. The Inspector General of Prisons has been empowered to pass an order under Rule 575 of the Tamil Nadu Prison Manual, 1983. This rule reads as follows: “Adolescents in the age group of 18 to 25, other than those dealt with under Sec.8 of the Tamil Nadu Borstal Schools Act 1925, (Tamil Nadu Act V of 1926) and confined in Central Prisons shall be transferred to the adolescent Centre of the Borstal School, Pudukottai under the orders of the Inspector General and retransferred to the Prisons of their origin if they happen to remain in the Borstal School at the time of attaining the age of 25 years.” This rule makes it mandatory on the part of the Inspector General of Prisons to transfer from prisons to the Borstal School those adolescent prisoners in the age group of 18 to 25 who have not been dealt with under Sec.8 of the Tamil Nadu Borstal Schools Act 1925. Again, under this rule it is mandatory on the part of the Inspector General of Prisons that on the prisoners attaining 25 years the shall retransfer them to prisons. This rule is ndependent of the provisions in Tamil Nadu Borstal Schools Act 1925. It is nobodys case that these prisoners were dealt with under Sec.8 of the Bortal Schools Act, 1925. 5. Sec.8 of the Borstal Schools Act empowers the Court that if it thinks that it would help to reform he prisoner and repress the crime, in lieu of jassing a sentence of imprisonment, to pass a entence of detention in a borstal school for a term ‘hich shall not be less than two years and shall not kceed five years, but in no case extend beyond the ate on which the adolescent offender attains the Age of 23 years. 6. Sec. 10 gives power to the Inspector General of Prisons to transfer adolescent prisoners from prison to borstal school if he thinks that it might have advantage to the prisoner. This power he can exercise in respect of the prisoners who are undergoing imprisonment either before or after the passing of the Act (Madras Borstal Schools Act). He can direct such a prisoner to serve the whole or any part of the unexpired residue of his sentence. This power he can exercise in respect of the prisoners who are undergoing imprisonment either before or after the passing of the Act (Madras Borstal Schools Act). He can direct such a prisoner to serve the whole or any part of the unexpired residue of his sentence. On such an order the provisions of the Borstal Schools Act will apply to such person as if he had been originally sentence to detention in a borstal school. 7. Sec 10-A empowers the Government to transfer from prisons to borstal schools the adolescent prisoners who have been sentenced to transportation (Now in view of Act 26 of 1955 the word “transportation” should be read as “imprisonment for life”) and at the time of conviction was not less than 18 and not more than 21 years of age. On such transfer he shall serve the whole or any part of the unexpired residue of the sentence there. The provisions of the Act shall apply to such an offender also as if he had been originally sentenced to detention in a borstal school. 8. A conjoint reading of Secs.8, 10, 10-A as it originally stood would clearly show that Secs.8 and 10 would apply to those prisoners who have been sentenced to imprisonment and not sentenced to transportation for life and Sec.10-A would apply to prisoners sentenced to transportation for life. It must be remembered that when the court at the time of conviction, under Sec.8 in lieu of passing a sentence of imprisonment passed a sentence of detention in a borstal school, such imprisonment shall not be for a term less than two years and shall not exceed five years but in no case shall extend beyond the date on which the offender will attain t the age of 23 years. 9. Now, both in Sees. 10 and 10-A seen above, it is provided that when; in order is passed under the section, the provisiors of the Act shall apply to the offender as if he had been originally sentenced to detention in a borstal school. Therefore when a person is transferred from prison to borstal school under Sec.i 10 or 10-A, the period of detention there shall not exceed five years and in no case shall be beyond the date on which the prisoner attains the age of 23 years. Therefore there is no doubt that if the. Therefore when a person is transferred from prison to borstal school under Sec.i 10 or 10-A, the period of detention there shall not exceed five years and in no case shall be beyond the date on which the prisoner attains the age of 23 years. Therefore there is no doubt that if the. prisoners in question in our case had been transferred 10 borstal school under Sec.10 or 10-A of the Borstal Schools Act when they attain the age of 23 years they have to be released and no retransfer and further detention in the prison would arise. But no order under Sec.8 has been passed in respect of the prisoners nor have they been transferred from prison to borstal school under Sec.10 or 10-A. They have been transferred from prisons to the borstal school by an order of the Inspector General of Prisons under Rule 575 of the Tamil Nadu Prison Manual, 1983. Such a transfer will not be deemed to have been made under Sec.8 of the Borstal Schools Act as in the case of Sec. 10 and 10-A since there is no provision of law to that effect. It must be remembered that Rule 575 applies to any sentence including life sentence. In the counter filed by the respondents it is clearly stated to the effect that only after the prisoners attained the age of 25 years they have been retransferred to prisons. This retransfer is in accordance with Rule 575 of the Nadu Prison Manual. 10. This view of ours is supported by an unreported Judgment by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos. 10078 and 12630 of 1984 and 457, 2378 and 3511 of 1985 W.P.No.10067 of 1984 Kesavan v. State of Tamil Nadu represented by Secretary to Government, Home Department, Madras-9 and another. On behalf of the prisoners another Division Bench judgment in W.P.No.2125 of 1986 P.Mohan v.State of Tamil Nadu represented by Secretary to Government, Home Department, Madras-9 and another was relied on but in that judgment the transfer of the prisoner from jail to borstal school was made unde r Sec.10 of the Borstal Schools Act. This is not the case here. Further in that decision a judgment of the Supreme Court which dealt with a matter in which the prisoner was transferred to borstal school under Sec. 10-A was followed. This is not the case here. Further in that decision a judgment of the Supreme Court which dealt with a matter in which the prisoner was transferred to borstal school under Sec. 10-A was followed. Therefore the said Division Bench decision of this Court in W.P.No.2125 of 1986 will not help the prisoners. For the prisoners a Supreme Court ruling in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Val-labhapuram Ravi State of Andhra Pradesh v. Val-labhapuram Ravi 1984 Crl.L.J. 1511, was also relied on. But in that matter the prisoner was sent to borstal school under Sec.10-A of the Andhra Pradesh Borstal Schools Act. Another decision of the Supreme Court in Kumar Bahadur v. State of U.P. Kumar (1980) Crl.L.J. 3 was also relied on by the prisoners but that was a matter in which the prisoner has been sent to borstal school under Sec.7 of the United Provinces Borstal Act, 1938. It is not stated in that judgment as to what are the terms of that section. Therefore that decision is of no avail to the prisoners. Yet another ruling of the Supreme Court in Zhava Singh v. State of Haryana, A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 2001 was cited for the prisoners, but in that case the prisonerhad been sent to Borstal Institute under the provisions of the Punjab Borstal Act. Hence this ruling also is not relevant to our case. 11. In the result therefore, we do not see merit in this writ petition. Accordingly it is dismissed.