R. K. Manisana,J.— In this application under Article 226 of the Constitu­tion, petitioners, who are the employees of the Assam Legislative Assembly Secretariat, have questioned the validity of the Assam Legislative Assembly Secretariat (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1986 (for short `Rules'). 2. Facts,- On 26.3.51. the Assam Legislative Assembly appointed a Committee to make recommendation as to the method of regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of the persons appointed, to the secret­arial staff of the Assembly. The recommendation of the Committee relating to the recruitment and conditions of service was placed before the Legislature of the State of Assam. The Legislature adopted the recommendation by a resolution passed on 1.9.51 (which we shall refer to as the `Resolution'). Thereafter, the recruitment and conditions of service were governed by the Resolution. But, the Governor of Assam, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (3) of Article 187 of the Constitution of India made the Rules in the year 1986 after consultation with the Speaker of the Assam Legislative Assembly. The Rules were amended in the year 1987 by inserting Rule 37A, which reads,- "Repeal. - The provisions of the recommendation of the Committee appointed by the Assam Legislative Assembly by its Resolution dated 26th March, 1951 and adopted by the Assembly relating to the method of regulating the Recruitment and Conditions of Service of persons appointed to the Secretariate of the State Legislative Assembly of Assam and on other matters incidental thereto are hereby repealed." 3. Mr. B.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that the Resolution was law made by the Legislature of the State of Assam under Article 187 (2) of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the Governorhad no power to make the Rules in exercise of the powers under Article 187(3) of the Constitution. Learned counsel has further contended that in any event Rule 37-A repealing the Resolution has been made without jurisdiction. 4. Following questions are for considaration. First, whether the Resolution was law made under clause (2) of Article 187 ? Second, whether the Governor of Assam made the Rules without jurisdiction? Third, whether Rule 37-A is ultra vires ? 5. Article 187 of the Constitution of India runs as follows : "187. 4. Following questions are for considaration. First, whether the Resolution was law made under clause (2) of Article 187 ? Second, whether the Governor of Assam made the Rules without jurisdiction? Third, whether Rule 37-A is ultra vires ? 5. Article 187 of the Constitution of India runs as follows : "187. (1) The House or each House of the Legislature of a State shall have a separate secretarial staff : Provided that nothing in this clause shall, in the case of the Legisla­ture of a State having a Legislative Council, be construed as preventing the creation of posts common to both Houses of such Legislature. (2) The Legislature of a State may by law regulate the recruitment, and the conditions of service of persons appointed to the secretarial staff of the House or Houses of the Legislature of the State. (3) Until provision is made by the Legislature of the State under clause (2), the Governor may, after consultation with the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly or the Chairman of the Legislative Council, as the case may be, make Rules regulating, the recruitment and the conditions of service of persons appointed, to the secretarial staff of the Assembly or the Council and any Rules so made shall have effect subject to the provisions of any law made under the said clause.'' Under clause (2), the Legislature of a State may by law regulate the recruitment, and the conditions of service of the persons appointed, to the secretarial staff of the House or Houses of the Legislature of the State. Under clause (3) of Article 187, until provision is made by the Legislature of the State under clause (2), the Governor may, after consultation with the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, make Rules regulating the recruitment, and the conditions of service of the persons appointed, to the secretarial staff of the Assembly, and any Rules so made shall have effect subject to the provisions of any law made under clause (2). 6. The question then is, - Whether the Resolution was a law within the meaning of clause (2). 6. The question then is, - Whether the Resolution was a law within the meaning of clause (2). We are of the opinion that, in the circumstances of clause (2) of Article 187, the term `law' used in clause (2) means Statute Law, i.e. an Act enacted by the Legislature of a State after legislative proposals have been brought in the form of Bill (statute in draft) before the Legislature of a State and passed by the Legislature and assented to by the Governor of the State. 7. Mr. B.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners, has drawn our attention to a decision of the Supreme Court reported as State of MP vs. Mandawar, AIR 1954SC 493. On a reading of judgment of the Supreme Court, it appears that the Supreme Court approved the proposition that, when once the Government passed a resolution fixing a scale of allowance under FR 44, that would be law as defined in Article 13 (3) (a) of the Constitution of India. The decision is inapplicable to the present case in view of our discussions above, viz, the resolution was not an Act of Parliament or State Legislature. 8. With regard to the resolutions adopted or passed by the State Legisla-tive Assembly, there are resolutions passed in pursuance of a provision in the Constitution or an Act of Parliament or Legislature of a State. Those resolutions can be termed or called as the "statutory resolutions". Such statutory resolutions are binding on the Government and have the force of law. There are also non-statutory resolutions which also have the force of law, such as a resolution of the House in the matter of control over its own pro­ceedings. Although, the Resolution in question might have the force of law, it could not be said that it was an Act made by the Legislature of the State of Assam for it was not brought in the form of Bill and it was not assented to by the Governor after adopting the Resolution. We have already concluded that the term `law', in the circumstance of clause (2), means an Act of the Legislature of a State. Therefore, the Resolution was not a law made by Legislature of the State of Assam under clause (2). We have already concluded that the term `law', in the circumstance of clause (2), means an Act of the Legislature of a State. Therefore, the Resolution was not a law made by Legislature of the State of Assam under clause (2). On a reading of clauses (2) and (3), it shows that if there is an Act enacted by the Legislature of the State under clause (2), the Governor is not authorised to make the Rules provided under clause (3); otherwise the Governor has the jurisdiction. As no Act has been made by the Legislature of the State of Assam under clause (2), the Resolution could not take away the jurisdiction of the Governor from its making the Rules conferred on it by the Constitution. This being the position the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners are rejected. Accord­ingly, it is held that the Resolution was not law made by the Legislature of the State of Assam under clause (2), and that the Governor had the jurisdiction to make the Rules under clause (3), and that Rule 37A of the Rules is not ultra vires for the Governor having power to make the Rules under the Constitution, it has the power to amend the Rules under section 21 of the General Clauses Act read with Article 367 of the Constitution. 1 9. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.