Judgment S.B.Sinha, J. 1. In this application the petitioner questions the order of transfer dated 6-12-1990 passed by the respondent No. 2 and as contained in Annxure-3 to the writ application whereby the respondent No. 3 had been posted for a period of one year in the school in question of deputation as also for quashing of an order dated 5-6-1989 as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ application whereby her representation for being recognised as a Founder Headmistress of the school has been rejected. 2. The petitioner challenged the said orders principally on two grounds: (a) She being a Founder Headmistress, the respondent No. 4 could not have been posted on deputation as Headmistress. (b) The cadre of respondent No. 4 being that of the project School, she could not have been transferred to a nationalised school, whose cadre is different. 3. According to the petitioner she was appointed as Founder Headmistress of the School on 29-9-1978. The State while considering the matter of grant of permission to establish the said school called for a report from the District Education Officer who by his report dated 242-1981 recognised the status of the petitioner as Founder Headmistress. The permission to establish the school was granted on 23-1-1982. The petitioner thereafter was allegedly reverted to the post of Assistant Teacher by the Managing Committee of the said school and in her place appointed one Narendra Kumar Singh as the Headmaster of the school on 1-4-1982. The petitioner allegedly filed a representation on the same day which is contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application. 4. According to the petitioner her case had been recommended from time to time but she was not communicated with any decision. 5. In the meanwhile, the order of the deputation of respondent No. 4 to the said school (Annexure-3) was issued and upon enquiry she came to learn that her representation had been rejected by an order dated 5-6-1989 (Annexure-2). 6. It appears that the aforementioned Narendra Kumar Singh was appointed as founder Headmaster. The said Narendra Kumar Singh filed a writ petition being CWJC No. 3 95 of 1983 in this Court for a direction for treating him as Headmaster of the school and in the said writ petition was allowed. The said decision is reported in 1885 PLJR 1128. It appears that the aforementioned Narendra Kumar Singh was appointed as founder Headmaster. The said Narendra Kumar Singh filed a writ petition being CWJC No. 3 95 of 1983 in this Court for a direction for treating him as Headmaster of the school and in the said writ petition was allowed. The said decision is reported in 1885 PLJR 1128. The State filed a Letters Patent Appeal against the said judgment being LPA No. 53 of 1985 which was disposed of in terms of the observations of the Supreme Court made in S. L. P. (Civil) No. 4828-03/1986 which arose out of a full Bench decision of this Court in Ram Ballabh Singh V/s. State of Bihar reported in 1986 PLJR 373 . In the light of the decision of this Court in the aforementioned LPA, the case of the Narendra Kumar Singh was thereafter considered by the Special Board and he was appointed as founder Headmaster by an order dated 21-8-1988. 7. It is not in dispute that when a school is treated as one unit, the services only as one founder Headmaster can be recognised. The name of the petitioner was mentioned by the special Board at serial No. 3 in the list of teaching staff as an Assistant Teacher. 8. Narendra Kumar Singh was transferred from the said school whereas one Hardeo Singh was appointed as Headmaster and upon his retirement the petitioner had been permitted to work only as acting Headmasters of the School. 9. Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that although the respondent No. 4 was deputed for one year only but her period of deputation had been extended subsequently by an order dated 16-3-1992. However, the petitioner has not filed any application for amendment of the writ petition nor has questioned the said purported subsequent order dated 16-3-1982. 10. It was further submitted by Mr. Singh, that in the writ petition filed by Narendra Kumar Singh, the petitioner was not a party and consequently any decision taken in favour of N.K. Singh, pursuant to the decision of this Court is not binding upon her. 11. 10. It was further submitted by Mr. Singh, that in the writ petition filed by Narendra Kumar Singh, the petitioner was not a party and consequently any decision taken in favour of N.K. Singh, pursuant to the decision of this Court is not binding upon her. 11. According to the learned Counsel the petitioner had filed a representation on 1st April, 1982 (Annexure-1) itself when N.K. Singh was posted as founder Headmaster and the petitioner was reverted to the post of an Assistant Teacher and recommendations were made in his favour by the District Education Officer, Gaya in his letter dated 5-8-1988 addressed to the Director Secondary Education (Annexure-1) 12. It is true that the petitioner was not a party in the writ petition filed by Sri Narendra Kumar Singh. However we have no doubt in our mind that the petitioner had knowledge about the said writ petition. The Letter Patent Appeal preferred by the petitioner being L. P. A. No. 53/85 was dismissed by this Court on 4-2-1988. Earlier similar question was considered by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned Special Leave application and the Supreme Court held that persons who claimed themselves to be a founder Headmaster should be screened by the Board. The State Government made certain directions pursuant to the direction of the Supreme Court which covered the case of N. K. Singh also. The said Letters Patent Appeal had also been disposed of in view of the decision of the Supreme Court aforementioned. 13. Admittedly the Special Board, thereafter considered the cases of all persons and by an order dated 21-2-188 the said Narendra Kumar Singh was appointed as founder Headmaster. 14. It is hard to believe that when an enquiry had been made by the Special Board constituted for that purpose by the State of Bihar, the petitioner did not put forth her claim nor was she aware of the orders of the Special Board. As noticed hereinbefore, the Special Board in its report stated that Narendra Kumar Singh was the Headmaster and the petitioners name appeared at serial No. 3 as an Assistant Teacher. As indicated hereinbefore, thereafter Narendra Kumar Singh was transferred and one Hardeo Singh was appointed as Headmaster of the said School. The petitioner did not question either the order of the State Government dated 21-8-1988 appointing Sri N K. Singh as a Founder Headmaster. As indicated hereinbefore, thereafter Narendra Kumar Singh was transferred and one Hardeo Singh was appointed as Headmaster of the said School. The petitioner did not question either the order of the State Government dated 21-8-1988 appointing Sri N K. Singh as a Founder Headmaster. Thereafter Hardeo Singh was appointed as Headmaster whose posting was also not questioned by the petitioner. It is also difficult for us to believe that the petitioner was not aware of the decision of the State Government dated 5-6-1989 as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ application. 15. We have therefore, no option but to hold that the petitioner was merely an Assistant Teacher and not the founder Headmaster of the School, In any event as she never questioned the report of the Special Board, she is estopped and precluded from advancing her claim at this belated stage. 16. The respondent No. 4 had been deputed in the said school only for a period of one year. According to Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as the respondent No. 4 belongs to a different cadre namely the cadre of the Headmaster of project schools which is different from the cadre of Headmasters of Nationalised School, she could have been posted in the school in question which is the nationalised school. 17. This submissions made on behalf of the petitioner is devoid of merits. As an Assistant Teacher the petitioner has no locus standi to question the order of deputation of respondent No. 4. The Supreme Court in R.N. Singh V/s. State of Bihar (Civil Appeal No. 2520 and 2694 of 1989 disposed of dated 14th December 1989) read as follows: Ram Nandan Singh in Civil Appeal No. 2520/1989 was a Headmaster in the Kamla Devi High School. He apprehended danger to his life in view of surrounding nexalite movement. He made a request for his transfer. The District Education Officer recommended his case to the Director who transferred him from Kamla Devi High School to Rajarshas Vidya Mandir Aurangabad. It was a vacant post Respondent No. 3 who is teacher in the said school challenged that transfer before the High Court. The High Court accepted the petition and quashed the transfer. It was observed that the Director himself did not apply his mind but he was guided by the instruction from the Hon ble Minister. It was a vacant post Respondent No. 3 who is teacher in the said school challenged that transfer before the High Court. The High Court accepted the petition and quashed the transfer. It was observed that the Director himself did not apply his mind but he was guided by the instruction from the Hon ble Minister. The High Court in our opinion ought not to have entertained the petition at the instance of respondent who has no locus standi to challenge the transfer. The respondent was neither displaced by the order nor affected by any other means. The High Court was entirely in error in interfering with the transfer. We, therefore, allow the appeal and reverse the order of the High Court. In the view that we have taken, the concerted SLPS are also allowed setting aside the respective impugned orders thereunder. No Costs. 18. In this view of the matter, it has to be held that the petitioner has no locus standi to question the order of deputation passed by the State in favour of the respondent No. 4. 19. Further, it is well known that although an employee cannot be transferred from one cadre to another cadre with his consent but can be posted in a different cadre with his concent it and in any event posting on deputation from one cadre to another cadre cannot be said to be illegal. It may be that the period of deputation of the petitioner has been extended as has been submitted by Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, but apart from the fact that the said order has not been questioned before us, we are of the view that by reason of the extension of the period of deputation of respondent No. 4 in the school in question, the petitioners legal right has not been affected, inasmuch as she being an Assistant Teacher would be entitled for being considered for her promotion to the post of Headmaster alongwith all other eligible candidates in accordance with law, when the matter relating to filing up the vacant post of Headmasters in the nationalised School by promotion is taken up by the authorities of the State of Bihar. 20. For the reasons aforementioned, we do not find any merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed. Indu Prabha Singh, J. 21 I agree.