Judgment S. B. Sinha, J. 1. The petitioner in this writ application questions an order dated 27-4-1992, whereby he has been transferred to Baruraj High school in the District of Muzaffarpur by cancelling his earlier order of transfer dated 27-12-1991 and further the respondent No.4 has been directed to be made acting Headmaster of the school till his superannuation. 2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. 3. The petitioner at all material times had been a Headmaster. In the year 1990 he was transferred to High School Baruraj in the District of Muzaffarpur from a High School in the District of Saran. The petitioners son had expired "in his prime youth leaving behind two minor children and a widow and he himself being an widower filed an application for his transfer from Muzaffarpur to the G. L. High School, the district of Vaishali before the Director Secondary Education who upon consideration of the said fact by an order dated 27-12-1991 (Annexure-1) transferred the petitioner to the said G. L. High School. The petitioner submitted his joining in the office of the District Education Officer, Vaishali on 28-1-1992 and thereafter joined the school in question on 2nd March, 1992. At that time admittedly the respondent No.4 was the Headmaster in-charge of that school. 4. Shri Baidyanath Mishra (respondent No.4) allegedly exerted political pressure as a result whereof the Director Secondary Education issued the impugned order dated 27-4-1992 (Annexure-3) cancelling the order of transfer as contained in Annexure-1 and directed that Shri mishra Assistant Teacher would continue to be the Acting Headmaster till his superannuation. The petitioner in support of this application has annexed a document to show that the case of the respondent No.4 was canvassed by one M. L. A. Shri Kedar Nath Prasad (Annexure-5 ). He has also brought on records a note-sheet of Shri Tulsi Das Mehta, minister of Energy Department dated 4-3-1992 issued to the Minister of human Resources Development Department. (Annexure-6 ). The latter on the body of the said note-sheet itself directed the Director Secondary education to allow the respondent No-4 to continue to perform his duties as Acting Headmaster. The contention of the petitioner, therefore, is that the impugned order has been passed mala fide and on extraneous consideration. 5. (Annexure-6 ). The latter on the body of the said note-sheet itself directed the Director Secondary education to allow the respondent No-4 to continue to perform his duties as Acting Headmaster. The contention of the petitioner, therefore, is that the impugned order has been passed mala fide and on extraneous consideration. 5. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.4 wherein it has been contended that the petitioner had been posted to the school in question illegally in his home district, being in contravention of the rules framed by the State of Bihar. It has further been contended that the petitioner was also transferred to the school in question pursuant to a pairvi made by Shri Parmanand Singh madan to Shri ramchandra Purba, Minister of Human Resources Development department by his letter dated 16-12-1992 which is contained in Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit and it appears that on the body of the said letter itself, the Director of Secondary Education directed transfer of the petitioner to the school in question. 6. It has therefore, been contended that the petitioner was also transferred to the school in question by the Director Secondary education on an extraneous consideration i. e. on the recommendations of an M. L. A. 7. Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised three contentions in support of this application. 8. The learned counsel firstly submitted that the respondent No.4 being an Assistant Teacher has no locus standi to question the order of transfer to the school in question passed in his favour (Annexure-1 ). The learned counsel in this connection has relied upon a Supreme court decision in R. N. Singh V/s. State of Bihar being Civil Appeal No.2520 of 1980 disposed of on 14-12-1989. 9. The learned counsel next contended that operation of Rule 12 (Anga) of Bihar Nationalised High School Service Conditions Rule 1983 as amended in the year 1988 having been stayed by the State of Bihar, the same has no application and thus there was no bar in transfering teacher to his home district. 10. The learned counsel next contended that in any event from a perusal of Annexures-5 and 6, it is evident that the impugned order having been passed on political Pairvi made on behalf of the respondent No.4, the same must be held to be mala fide in law. 11. Mr. 10. The learned counsel next contended that in any event from a perusal of Annexures-5 and 6, it is evident that the impugned order having been passed on political Pairvi made on behalf of the respondent No.4, the same must be held to be mala fide in law. 11. Mr. Chandra Sekhar learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.4 and Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Singh learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Intervenors, on the other hand, submitted that the decision of the Supreme Court in R. N. Singhs case (Supra) has no application in this case, inasmuch as, the writ petition has been filed by the petitioner and as such it is open to the respondent No.4 as also the State to support the impugned order inter alia on the ground that the petitioners order of transfer to the school in question passed by the Director of secondary Education by his older dated 2nd August, (Annexure-1) was illegal being contrary to statutory rules. 12. The learned counsel next contended that the purported order of stay dated 7-8-1990 (Annexure-A/11 to the Supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner) should be ignored in view of the fact that the Full Bench of this court in Ram Odar Jha and others V/s. State of Bihar reported in 1992 (1) PLJR 722 has clearly held that it was not necessary for the State to place the rules in both the houses of the Legislature and thus the same could not have been a ground for staying the operation of a valid rules. 13. It has further submitted that in any event, even if it be held that the said rules have no application, the bar of posting of a teacher in a home district must be held to be governed by the Notification No.12 (b)-738 of 1980 E-133, dated 21-2-1985 in terms whereof the petitioner could not have been posted in his home district. 14. 14. It was next contended that the respondent No.4s came is within the zone of consideration for promotion to the Post of Headmaster as the school in question, for the purpose of promotion has to be treated as one unit in view of the decisions of this court in Modem Kant Mishra V/s. The State of Bihar, reported in 1985 PLJR 107 and thus it was open to the respondent No.4 to question the order of transfer of the petitioner by filing a representation. It was lastly contended that in any event, as the petitioner also obtained the order of transfer by making political pairvi, no writ should issue in his favour. 15. Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, in reply to the aforementioned contentions drew my attention to another circular letter of the Education Department bearing No.12/wa 8-11/85-511 dated 15-8-1985 that whereby the notification dated 21-2-1985 has been stayed. 16. Re-contention (1 ).-It is admitted that the petitioner at all material times was and a still is a Headmaster and the respondent No.4 is an Assistant Teacher and at that point of time when the petitioner was transferred to the school in question, the respondents was acting headmaster. It is true that the Supreme Court in R. N. Singhs case (supra) has held that a teacher has no locus standi to challenge an order of transfer of a Headmaster. 17. However, in this case, the petitioner himself having come to this court, his case must stand all on its own legs. The contention that the respondent No.4 has no locus standi to challenge his transfer, is therefore, wholly irrelevant inasmuch as the respondent No.4 has not approached this court for obtaining any writ in his favour. Further admittedly at the relevant time, the respondent No.4 was the acting headmaster. He, therefore, was entitled to bring to the notice of the higher authorities that the transfer of the petitioner in the school in question was wholly illegal being in contravention of the policy decision of the state and/or the statutory rules. Further in any event the impugned order has been passed by the State of Bihar and thus it is for the petitioner to show that the same is illegal. 18. In this view of the matter, the first contention raised by the petitioner must be rejected. 19. Further in any event the impugned order has been passed by the State of Bihar and thus it is for the petitioner to show that the same is illegal. 18. In this view of the matter, the first contention raised by the petitioner must be rejected. 19. Re-contention No.2.-The State of Bihar enacted Bihar Non-Governments Secondary School (Taking over of Management and Control)Act wherebv and whereunder the management of various schools had been taken over. The State in exercise of its power conferred under the Act made rules known as bihar Nationalised High Schools Service Condition rules 1983 (for short the rules ). The vires of the said rules come up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Mateshwar Singh V/s. State of Bihar reported in 1985 PLJR 416 wherein this court upheld the vires thereof. A Division Bench however, doubted the correctness ot the view taken in Mateshwars Singhs case (supra) and thus the said petition alongwith the other writ application were referred to a Full Bench. 20. The Full Bench by a judgment dated 8-10-1991 in Ram Odar Jha and others V/s. State of Bihar reported in 1992 (1) PLJR 722 by a majority decision held that the said rules were intra vires. U. P. Singh, J. however, expressed a contrary view and held that the said rules are ultra vires. Admittedly the matter is pending consideration before the Supreme Court of India. 21. However it is well known that a Division Bench is bound by a full Bench decision and it cannot differ with the Full Bench only because the matter is pending consideration before the Supreme Court of India-See Bishundeo Singh V/s. Union of India, 1983 BBCJ 55 (Para 6 ). 22. Rule 12 of the rules deal with the matter of transfer. Rule 12 of 1983 rules however, do not put any embargo in the matter of transfer of teacher in a home district. By notification dated 21st February, 1985, the State had laid down the guideliness of transfer of the teachers of the nationalised Secondary Schools. 23. The said notification was issued by the State of Bihar in exercise of its power under Article 162 of the Constitution India. By notification dated 21st February, 1985, the State had laid down the guideliness of transfer of the teachers of the nationalised Secondary Schools. 23. The said notification was issued by the State of Bihar in exercise of its power under Article 162 of the Constitution India. It is now well known that statutory rules can be supplemented by executive instructions In terms of Clause 4 of the said notification dated 21st February, 1985 an embargo has been put to the effect that no teacher shall be posted in his home block but he only be posted in his home district/block during two vears of his service immediately prior to reaching the age of superannuation. The said notification has, therefore, the force of law. 24. Clause 4 of the said notification appears to be mandatory in character as an embargo has, thereby been put upon posting of any teacher. 25. In Ram Ballabh Prasad V/s. State of Bihar reported in 1986 PLJR 373 a Full Bench of this court has held that a teacher includers headmaster within the meaning of the Act. The operation of the said notification was not and could not have been stayed by the circular dated 15th August.1985 as has been contended by shri Ganesh Prasad Singh inasmuch as from a perusal thereof it appears that only transfers made pursuant to notification No.133 dated 21.2.1985 were stayed. It is, thus clear only the orders of transfer were directed to be stayed by the aforementioned circular dated 15th August, 1985 and the notification as such has not been stayed. The said order had been issued, as it was found that orders of transfer of the teachers had been passed in violation of the direction contained in the aforementioned notification No.133 dated 21 2 1985. The circular letter dated 15th August, 1985, therefore does not advance the case of the petitioner. In any event, as the aforementioned notification dated 21st February, 1985 was issued under the order of the Governor of Bihar and thus being an instrument within the meaning of Article 162 of the Constitution of India ; operation thereof could not have been stayed by reason of a circular letter issued by the Director of secondary Education. 26. In any event, as the aforementioned notification dated 21st February, 1985 was issued under the order of the Governor of Bihar and thus being an instrument within the meaning of Article 162 of the Constitution of India ; operation thereof could not have been stayed by reason of a circular letter issued by the Director of secondary Education. 26. The State of Bihar thereafter admittedly amended Rule 12 of the rules in the year 1988 by a notification No.437 dated 28.4.1988 and by reason of clause "anga" thereof an embargo has been put in posting a teachers in his home district. As indicated hereinbefore, the said amendment in the rules carried out in the year 1988 was sought to be stayed by a notification dated 7.8.1990 only on the ground that the same had not been placed before both the houses of the Legislature. Allegedly the said order of stay had been passed purported to be under some directions of the chairman of the Bihar Legislative Assembly. 27. As indicated hereinbefore, the vires of the said rules had been subject-matter of the consideration by a Full Bench of this court in Ram odar Jha and others V/s. . State of Bihar reported in 1992 (1) PLJR 722. G. C. Bharuka J, who delivered a separte judgment in that case upon noticing the effect of the said notification dated 7.8.1990 held as follows:- "mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners has brought to our notice that the State Government also, as is evident from the notification No.437 dated 28th april, 1989, is of view that since there was no laying before the houses in terms of the enabling Act, therefore, the Rules have not come into force. But in my view the State Government has taken the said stand under a complete misconception of facts as well as the law and therefore, the same is wholly inconsequential for the determination of the issue at Hand". 28. Even assuming that the operation of the amended rules as notified by notification No.437 dated 28.4.1988 is not operative, there cannot be any doubt that in that event, the executive instructions of the State dated 21st February, 1985 remain alive thereby. 28. Even assuming that the operation of the amended rules as notified by notification No.437 dated 28.4.1988 is not operative, there cannot be any doubt that in that event, the executive instructions of the State dated 21st February, 1985 remain alive thereby. Hence I have no other opinion but to hold that eithar by reason of Rules 12 (Anga) as amended in the year 1988 or by reason of the aforementioned executive instruction dated 21st February, 1985, which ever is applicable, the State was debarred from posting the petitioner to his home district. The notification dated 21.2.1985 was not inconsistant with the original rules or as amended in 1988. 29. In that view of the matter, the transfer of the petitioner by order dated 27th December, 1991 as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application cannot be said to be valid. 30. Re-contention No.3.-The petitioner admittedly filed a representation for his transfer. The petitioner may or may not have valid reasons for filing the said representation. Such a representation however, was required to be considered by the Director Secondary Education himself on its own merits and in accordance with law. 31. However, admittedly, the petitioners case was sponsored by a m. L. A. Shri Parmanand Singh, madan. 32. Although a representative of the people is entitled to bring any matter to the notice of the Minister concerned it does not stand to any reason as to how the Minister of Fducation without calling for any report from the Director of Secondary Education and without considering the materials on record passed an order on the body of the said letter dated 16.7.1988 (Annexure-8) to the counter-affidevits itself. Similarly after the order dated 27.12.1991 was posted in favour of the petitioner (Annexure-1 to the writ application), the respondent No.4 filed a representation. The case of respondent No.4 case was thereafter sponsored by one Kedar nath Prasad M. L. A. dated 31.1.1991 (Annexure-5) and on the body of the said letter, the Minister of Education made an endorsement asking the director of Education to act in terms of the said recommendations. Political pairavi made on behalf of the respondents did not stop there. The case of respondent No.4 case was thereafter sponsored by one Kedar nath Prasad M. L. A. dated 31.1.1991 (Annexure-5) and on the body of the said letter, the Minister of Education made an endorsement asking the director of Education to act in terms of the said recommendations. Political pairavi made on behalf of the respondents did not stop there. From annexure-6, it appears that Shri Tulsi Das Mehta, Minister of Energy department issued a note-sheet dated 4.3.1992 wherein he requested the minister of Human Resources Development Department to allow the respondent No.4 to continue to act as Headmaster and surprisingly the minister again made an endorsement on 6.3.1992 on the body of the said notification directing the Director Education to allow the respondent No.4 to continue to act as acting Headmaster till he attains the age of superannuation. 33. This court times without number has deprecated such acts on the part of the Ministers in no uncertain terms, but despite the same, the minister easily fall prey to political pairavis. Such action on the part of the men in power depict a sordid state of affairs. The State should be run by rule of law and not by rule of men. 34. In the instant case, from the facts as noticed hereinbefore, it is evident that the Minister of Humun Resources Development Department had been making endorsements on the body of all the representations apparently without any application of mind. Such mindless orders are nullities. He, while making an endorsement probably did not even reimburse his earlier directions. Further such orders on the note-sheets and/or letters of M. L. As. or Ministers of other departments cannot be said to be the orders passed in terms of the provisions of the Constitution. They are fit to be ignored. 35. It appears surprising to us that the Ministers concerned pass such orders on political pairavis made to them which is done evidently on political considerations and without taking into consideration the requirements of law. We express our anguish over such acts of the Minister. It is unfortunate that despite adverse comments of the court of law, the ministers do not even care to change the attitude. We express our anguish over such acts of the Minister. It is unfortunate that despite adverse comments of the court of law, the ministers do not even care to change the attitude. We only hope and trust that in future good senses will prevail on the minister of Education and he would refrain from passing such mindless orders and would allow the statutory authority namely the Director of secondary Education to discharge his statutory duties. 36. It is well known that issuance of a writ of certiorari is a discretionary. The High Court while issuing a writ of certiorari may refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in quashing an illegal order if it is found that in doing so another illegality will be reviewed or it may in its discretion may quash both the orders. In Pramod Kumar V/s. State of Bihar reported in 1988 PLJR 923, this court upon taking into consideration a large number of decisions held :- "it is well settled by the various decision of this court and the supreme Court of India that issuance of a writ of certiorari is a discretionary remedy. IE this connection reference may be made in the case of Godde Venkateshwara Rao. V/s. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others ( AIR 1966 SC 828 ) : Abdual Majid and others V/s. The State Transport Appellate Authority, Bihar and others (AIR 1960/patna 333), Devendra Prasad Gupta V/s. The state of Bihar and other (1977 B. B. C. J.543, 1977 PLJR 576): hari Prasad Mandal V/s. Additional Collector (1978 B. B. C. J.575 ; 1978 PLJR 636) : Banwari Lal Nowatia V/s. Under Secretary to government of India and others (1982 BLT 311) and 1988 (i)Supreme Court cases page 40. The aforementioned decisions are authorities for the proposition that writ jurisdiction of a high Court only provides for discretionary remedy and it should not be exercised for quashing an order which might give rise to another illegal order as if substantial justice has been done to the parties. In this connection, reference may be made to recent decision of mine in the case of Jai Bharat Co. In this connection, reference may be made to recent decision of mine in the case of Jai Bharat Co. V/s. Central Coal Field Ltd. reported in 1988 BLT (Rep) at page 192 wherein it was held that a High court would be justified in a given case to refuse to interfere with illegal order if it is inequitable so to do or if the same would be against Public interst. " 37. Reference in this connection may also be made to a recent division Bench decision of this court in Suku Mahto V/s. State of Bihar reported in 1992 (2) PLJR 134. 38. In Moinuddin V/s. Dy. Director of Consolidation and others reported in 1978 Allahabad page 241 upon which strong reliance has been placed by Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh himself, it has been held that only because an order is illegal and the party has a right to set aside the same, the same may not be done in all cases. In British India Corporation V/s. Industrial Tribunal reported in 1965 Punjab 159 upon which also Mr. Singh has placed reliance, it has further been held that the court may refuse to exercise its discretion where substantial justice has been done. 39. Keeping in view the large number of decisions as noticed here in before. I consider it fit and proper to quash both the Annexures-1 and 4. The Director of Secondary Education is hereby directed to pas fresh orders both in respect of the petitioner as also in respect of respondent no.4 upon consideration of all relevant facts and upon application of his own independent mind without in any way, being influenced and prejudiced by the orders/directions issued by the Minister of the Human Resources development Department as contained in Annexures 5,6 to the supplementary affidavit and Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. In accordance with law. The Director Secondary Education must pass an appropriate order within one month from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time however, status quo as obtaining today shall be maintained. 40. This application is, therefore, allowed to the extent mentioned hereinbefore but without any order as to costs. Writ Application partly allowed.