JUDGMENT S. B. Sinha and G. C. Bharuka, JJ.- This application is directed against an order dated 29th January, 1992 passed by the Director Secondary Education as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ application whereby and where under the respondent No. 4 has been transferred to Shanker High School Takia and thereby, order pf transfer passed in favour of the petitioner by Memo No. 4051 dated 20th November, 1991 as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application has been cancelled and he has been directed to remain posted in the same school. 2. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that as the petitioner was transferred Validly to the school in question by reason of Annexure-1 to the writ petition, the same could not have been cancelled by reason of the impugned order as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ application. It was submitted that the said order has been passed owing to the political pairivi made in that regard as would be evident from Annexure-2 to the writ petition. 3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.4 it bas been pointed out that the petitioner is a resident of Rohtas District. According to the respondent the order of transfer as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application had also not been passed by the competent authority and thus the same is a nullity. 4. Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.4 further submitted that the petitioner has no locus stdndi to maintain this writ application in view of the fact that the order of transfer as contained in Annexure-l to the writ application is absolutely illegal and with-out jurisdiction and thus he did not derive any legal right in terms thereof. 5. Our attention has further been drawn to the fact that by reason of Annexure-2 to the writ application, no political parivies for posting of respondent No. 3 to the school in question were made and thus on that ground too, the impugned order as contained in Annexure-3 cannot be said to be illegal. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in our opinion, it is not necessary to enter into the aforementioned controversies. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in our opinion, it is not necessary to enter into the aforementioned controversies. It is admitted that the order of transfer so far as the post of Headmaster is concerned, is governed by Rule 12 of Bihar Nationalised Secondary School (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1983. 7. It has not been disputed at the bar that both the orders as contained in Annexures 1 and 3 to the writ application had been passed in violation of Rule 12 of the aforementioned Rules. 8. Before passing the said orders evidently the respondent have not also considered the facts as to whether both the petitioner as also the respondent No. 4 could have been posted in the school in question in view of the fact that they are said to be the resident of the same district. In our opinion, therefore, both the orders as contained in Annexures-1 and 3 to the writ application are liable to be quashed. 9. However, it appears that the respondent No.4 has joined the post pursuant to the impugned order dated 29.1.1992 as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ application. In this situation, although we quash both the orders as contained in Annexure-I and 3 to the writ application but we direct that till the respondent No.4 is posted in another school, status quo shall be maintained. However, we also direct the Director Secondary Education to immediately convene a meeting of the State Level Committee so that a suitable order of posting so far as respondent No. 4 is concerned may be passed keeping in view the provision of Rule 12 of 1983 Rules. 10. The order of posting of respondent No.4 should be passed with utmost expedition and preferably within a period of one month from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order.