Judgment G. C. Bharuka, J. 1. - In both these writ applications, the question involved is whether the post of headmaster in the nationalised secondary schools, which has fallen vacant during the period 2-10-1980 and 26-9-1983, has to be filled up either (i) from amongst the eligible teachers of the school concerned by treating the school in question as an independent unit or (ii) on the basis of district level gradation list, or (iii) in accordance with the Bihar Nationalised Secondary Schools (Conditions of Services)Rules, 1983 (hereinafter as the Rules only) The relevance of the two dated i. e.2-10-1980 and 26-9-1983 is that on the former date the schools in question were nationalised and on the latter date the Rules have come into force. 2. So far as the facts are concerned, it is suffice to say that the petitioners in these writ applications are teachers in the nationalised secondary schools and, according to them, they have acquired a right to be promoted to the post of headmaster, which has fallen vacant in their respective schools during the period under consideration, as referred to above. 3. For seeking an answer to the question involves, it is necessary to have a glance on the relevant statutory provisions relating to the administration of the schools imparting secondary education in the State of Bihar. It appears that regulations in this regard were for the first time enforced through the legislative process by enactment of the Bihar Schools (Control and Regulation of Administration) Act, 1960 This Act was repealed by the Bihar Secondary Education Board Act, 1976 (Bihar Act 25 of 1976), which as disclosed in the Preamble, was enacted for the better management of the Non-Government Secondary Schools of the State and for regulating the service conditions of the teachers and non-teaching employees of the schools. Sec.63 of the said Act empowered the State Government to issue such directions as may be found necessary by St. Pursuant to this power, the State Government issued Circle No.2305 dated 25-7-1977 which was modified by the subsequent Circular dated 29-11-1979. These instructions laid down certain guidelines in relation to the promotion and appointment to the post of headmaster and assistant headmaster of Non-Government secondary Schools. In para 4 of the said circular it has been stated that till the establishment of a district cadre every school will be regarded as an unit. 4. These instructions laid down certain guidelines in relation to the promotion and appointment to the post of headmaster and assistant headmaster of Non-Government secondary Schools. In para 4 of the said circular it has been stated that till the establishment of a district cadre every school will be regarded as an unit. 4. Bihar Non-Government Secondary Schools (Taking over of Management and Control)Ordinance, 1980 (Ordinance No.146 of 1980) was promulgated by the govern on 11th August, 1980, Clause 21 of this ordinance repeals Act 25 of 1976, and pursuant to Clause 3 (1) thereto, the Non-Government Secondary Schools, subject to certain excepted classes, were nationalised by the Government with effect from 2nd october, 1980. After repromulgations of the said Ordinance containing identical provisions, the same was enacted as Bihar Non-Government secondary Schools (Taking over of Management and Control) Act, 1981 (Bihar Act 33 of 1982) hereinafter as the Act only ). Sec.4 (3) of the act, inter alia, provides that except the age of superannuation of the headmasters, teachers and other employee of the schools taken over by the state Government, which shall be 58 years, other terms and conditions of their service shall cont inue to be the same as these were before the taking over of the management and control of the schools until any alteration is made by State Government in the prescribed manner. Sec.2 (k) of the Act defines prescribed to mean prescribed by the Act or the Rules framed thereunder. The power to frame Rules is provided under Section 15 of the Act. Sec.16 of the Act provides that if any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of the Act or the rules framed thereunder, the State Government may pass such order as it appears to be necessary for the purpose of removing the difficulty. Similar were the provisions under the preceding Ordinances. 5. The State Govt. purporting to exercise its power under the provisions of the Act, issued a circular contained in memo No.510 dated 20th Nov.1981, in relation to the promotion to the post of headmaster in the nationalised schools. Similar were the provisions under the preceding Ordinances. 5. The State Govt. purporting to exercise its power under the provisions of the Act, issued a circular contained in memo No.510 dated 20th Nov.1981, in relation to the promotion to the post of headmaster in the nationalised schools. This circular, inter alia, contemplates that in the nationalised secondary schools, the vacant post of the headmasters existing from the date of nationalisation i. e.2-10-1980 should be filed up by promotion from amongst the teachers of the school in question having the requisite eligibility and fitness treating the school as an independent unit. It also provides that so far as the vacancy which fell on 2-10-1980 or thereafter the promotion to the post of headmaster should be made in accordance with the rales after preparing a cadre of the teachers and their seniority list. In the case of Sheo Nath Prasad V/s. State of Bihar, 1984 PLJR, 556 a bench of this court has held that this circular has statutory force since it was issued in exercise of the powers under Sec.16 of the Ordinance. That being the position the word rules as used in the said Circular can only mean rules framed under Sec.15 of the Act. 6. Pursuant to the powers under Sec.15 of the Act, the State government framed Rules, which, as stated above, came into force on 26-9-1983, the date on which fbsr. se Rules were published in the official gazette. In these Rules elaborate provisions have been made in respect of filling up of the post of the headmasters by way of promotion as well as by direct appointment. Rules 3, 4, 6 and 7 are relevant for the purpose. As per Rule 6 (3) there will be a state cadre of headmasters and under Rule 7 (Ka) (1) 80% of the vacancies on the post of headmasters are to be filled op by promotion and 20% by direct appointment, keeping in view the eligibility and the procedures laid down in this regard under the rules. Under Rule 20 (3), the State Government has been empowered to issue explanation in order by notification, which will be deemed to be part of the Rules. Rule 21 of the Rules having some material bearing on the issues involved, is being quoted hereunder in exrenso. "21. Under Rule 20 (3), the State Government has been empowered to issue explanation in order by notification, which will be deemed to be part of the Rules. Rule 21 of the Rules having some material bearing on the issues involved, is being quoted hereunder in exrenso. "21. Repeal and Saving - (1) Prior to the enforcement of these Rules, any Rules made on the matters concerning these Rules by the dissolved Board of Secondary Education or by the State government or any order issued with respect thereto, shall be deemed to have been repealed from the date these Rules came in force. (2) Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken in exercise of any power conferred by or under the said orders shall be deemed to ha e been done or taken in the exercise of powers conferred by or under these Rules, as if these Rules were in force on the day on which such thing or action was done or taken. 7. The State Government, in exercise of its power under Rules 20 (3) of the Rules, issued a notification datrd 6th July, 1983, containing Its decision that the Government Order No.510 dated 20-11-1981 will remain effective till the disposal of the matters pending for promotion to the post of headmaster, which had fallen vacant prior to 2-10-1980. As provided under the Rules this Government order nag to be deemed to be a part of the Rules itself. 8. In the above background of the legal provisions and the statutory rules, it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the post of the headmaster, which had fallen vacant even subsequent to the date of nationalisation and prior to the enforcement of the Rules, has to be filled up from amongst the seniormost eligible teacher of the school by treating the school as an independent unit in view of the above referred Government circular dated 25-7-1977 as modified from time to time. The basis for this submission is that the right of promotion is a part of service conditions which continued to be the same under Sectioa 4 (3) of the Act till duly altered by the Rules. The basis for this submission is that the right of promotion is a part of service conditions which continued to be the same under Sectioa 4 (3) of the Act till duly altered by the Rules. According to the petitioners, in the present cases, the posts which had fallen vacant prior to the enforcement of the rules, has to be filled up in accordance with the Rules of promotion as existing at she material time and they can not deprived of their right. which has vested in them, by applying the subsequently framed Rules. In support of these submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decisions in the case of Y. V. Rangaiah and others V/s. J. Sreenivasa Rao and others, AIR 1983 SC 852 ; P. Mahendran and others v. State of Karnataka and others, AIR 1990 SC 405 ; Madan Kant Mishra V/s. The State of Bihar and others, 1985 PLJR 307 and in the case of The State of Maharashtra and another V/s. Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni and others, AIR 1981 SC 1990 . It has also been submitted on behalf of the petitioners and no reliance can be placed on the provisions of the Rules for considering the cases of promotion of the petitioners on the post of Headmaster because the question of validity of the said Rules is still subjudice before the Supreme Court and by order dated 16-12-1991 passed in Special Leave petition (Civil) No.18361 of 1991 and analogous cases, which has been preferred against the Full Bench judgment of this court in Ram Odar Jha and others V/s. State of Bihar and others, 1992 (1) PLJR 722, upholding the validity of the Rules, the Supreme Court has passed an order of status quo. 9. On the other hand, the learned Advocate-General appearing on behalf of the State, has submitted that all pending matters relating to promotion to the post of Headmaster have to be decided in accordance with the provisions of the Rules and in the matter of promotion no employee is entitled to plead any vested right. According to him the only right which an employee acquires is the right for being considered for promosian to the higher post in accordance with the Rules as is existing at the time such a consideration is made. According to him the only right which an employee acquires is the right for being considered for promosian to the higher post in accordance with the Rules as is existing at the time such a consideration is made. His submission is that the rules having been held to be valid and enforceable by the Full Bench of this court in the case of Ram Odar Jha (supra), the grant of status quo by the Supreme Court can not amount to restraining the State Government from enforcing the said Rules because the order of status quo can operate only in respect of the petitioners before the Supreme Court and can not be Interpreted as having the effect of staying the very operation of the rules in general. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance in the case of K Jagdeesan V/s. Union of India and others, AIR 1990 SC 1072 . 10. Now let me first deal with the Supreme Court decision in the case of Y. V, Rangaiah (supra), which has been heavily relied upon on behalf of the petitioners. The appellants In this case were working as lower Divlsian clerks in the Department of Registration and Stamps, andhra Pradesh. The dispute was based on the provisions of the Andhra pradesh Registration and Subordinate Service Rules These Rules were amended on 22-3-1977. The Rules before its amendment provided that all promotions shall be made from a list of the approved candidates, which shall be prepared in the month of September, every year The list was to remain in force until the list of approved candidates, for the succeeding year was prepared. There was a Government circular making it imperative on the part of the concerned authorities to take proper steps for preparation of the list in the month of September, every year. Admittedly the said mandatory requirement of preparing the list of the approved candidates for promotion was not prepared, as requited, as on 1st of september 1976 and, it was in this background that a grievance was raised by the appellants, who were working ands Lower Divlsioa clerks In the concerned department alleging therein that by applying the amended rules, the consideration of L D Clevks for promotion to the post of Sub-Registrar grade II, has been done away. The complaint of the appellants was that by delaying the preparation of the list of approved candidates till after the rules were amended, their chance for consideration for appointment to the higher post, was adversely affected. It was in this background that the Supreme Court in Para 9 at page 855 of the report has held that : "having heard the counsel for the parties, we find no force in either of the two contentions Under the old Rules a panel had to be prepared every year in September. Accordingly a panel should have been prepared Sn the year 1976 and transfer or promotion to the post of Sub-Registrar Grade II should have been made out of that panel. In that event the petitioners in the two representation petitions who ranked higher than the respondent nos.3 to 15 would not have been deprived of their right of being considered for promotion. The vacancies which occurred prior to the amended rules would be groverned by the old rules and not by the amended rules. It is admitted the counsel for both the parties that hence forth promotion to the post of Sub-Registrar Grade II will be according to the new rules on the zonal basis and not oa the statewise basis and, therefore there was no question of challenging the new rules. But the question is of filling the vacancies that occurred prior to the amended rules We have not the slightest doubt that the posts which fell vacant prior to the amended rules would be governed by ths old rules and not by the new rules. In this case the Supreme Court took a view that the "vacancies which occurred prior to the amended rules would be governed by the old Rules and not by the Amended rules" in the light of the legal provisions that under the unamended Rules a panel for promotion had to be prepared every year in September, and since the concerned authority had failed to prepare the said list to the disadvantage of the petitioners, they could not be deprived of their valuable right of promotion. The observations of the supreme Court have to be read in the context in which the same had been made and not as absolute proposition of law devoid of its context and background as has been sought to be impressed on behalf of the petitioners. The observations of the supreme Court have to be read in the context in which the same had been made and not as absolute proposition of law devoid of its context and background as has been sought to be impressed on behalf of the petitioners. In my opinion, this case is of no avail to the petitioners since there is nothing in the Rules or in the instructions relied upon by the petitioners, which require the filling up of the post of headmaster within a specified time 11. In the case of Mohammad Shujat Ali V/s. Union of India MR 1974 sc 1631 it has been held by the apex Court, "a rule which confers a right of actual promotion or a right to be considered for promotion is a role prescribing a condition of service. " In the case of T. R Kapur and others v. State of Haryana and others, AIR 1987 SC 415 (Para 16) it has been held that "it is equally well settled that any rule which affects the right of a person to be considered for promotion is a condition of service a though mere chances of promotion may not be. It may further be stated that an authority competent to lay down qualifications for promotion is also competent to change the qualifications. The rules defining qualifications and suitability for promotion are conditions of service and they can be changed retrospectively. " 12. In the case of Madan Kant Mishra, (Supra) a Bench of this court has held that since the petitioner of that case had been promoted to the post of the headmaster on 31-1-1982 i. e. before the enforcement of the rules in accordance with the statutory orders in force at that time i. e. the Circular dated 25th July, 1977, as amended from time to time, there fore his promotion was wholly saved as per Rule 21 (2) of the rules. The view taken by this court is even otherwise in confirmity with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in T. R. Kapurs case (supra ). It has not been held by this court in Madan Kant Mishras case (supra) that the matters relating to promotion to the post of headmaster which had fallen vacant prior to the date of enforcement of the Rules, will not be governed by the provisions of the Rules. 13. It has not been held by this court in Madan Kant Mishras case (supra) that the matters relating to promotion to the post of headmaster which had fallen vacant prior to the date of enforcement of the Rules, will not be governed by the provisions of the Rules. 13. In the case of P. Mahendran and others V/s. State of Karnataka and others AIR 1990 SC 405 , it has been held that : "since the amending Rule was not retrospective, it could not adversely affect the right of those candidates who were qualified for selection and appointment on the date they applied for the post, moreover as the process of selection had already commenced when the amending Rules came into force. The amended rule could cot affect the existing rights of those candidates who were being considered for selection as they possessed the requisite qualifications prescribed by the Rules befote its amendment more over construction of amending Rules should be made in a reasonable manner to avoid unnecessary hardship to those who have no control over the subject-matter. " The ratio of this case is also of no assistance to the petitioners of the case at hand because it is not the case of the petitioners that the process of filling up of the posts of headmaster in question had already commenced and the petitioners were being considered for that purpose before the rules became operative. 14. In the case of The State of Maharashtra and another V/s. Chandrakant anant Kulkarni aud others AIR 1981 SC 1990 , a Bench of three Hon ble Judges has held that t "mere chances of promotion are not conditions of service and the fact that there was reduction in the chances of promotion did not tantamount to a change in the conditions of service. A right to be considered for promotion is a term of service, bat mere chances of promotion are not. " 15. In the case of K. Jagadeesan V/s. Union of India and others, AIR 1990 SC 1072 , the appellant was only and diploma holder and had no degree in engineering. Under the Geological Survey of Indian (Groups a and group b posts) Recruitment Rules, 1967, as those originally stood, the appellant was entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of director (ME ). Under the Geological Survey of Indian (Groups a and group b posts) Recruitment Rules, 1967, as those originally stood, the appellant was entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of director (ME ). But this Rule was amended by a Notification dated 31-1-1984, which prescribed that for promotion to the post of Director (ME) a degree in engineering was a requisite qualification. The amended Rules were challenged on behalf of the appellant on the ground that it adversely affects the condition of service relating to promotion The Supreme Court repelled the argument by holding that the only effect of the amended Rule was that the appellants chance of promotion or his right to be considered for promotion to the higher post is adversely affected. But this can not be regarded as giving retrospective effect of the emend ment of the rules. 16. Keeping in view the statutory provisions and the binding precedents set out above, I am of the considered opinion that the matters of promotion of the petitioners, who are teachers in the nationalised secondary schools, have to be considered in accordance with the provisions made in this regard under the Rules. It is also held that the petitioners can not stake any claim for promotion to the post of headmaster on the basis of any Rule or instruction, which was In operation at the time the post had fallen vacant. It is for the State Government to take effective steps for filling up of the pests by promotion and/or by direct appointment in accordance with the statutory provisions and the Rules as in force at the time when effective steps in this regard are taken. 17. So far es the last submission made on behalf of the petitioners is concerned, It may be mentioned here that the validity of the Rules challenged in this court in various writ applications on the ground that as required under Sec.15 (2) of the Act, the Rules were not placed before both the Houses of the Legislature as required by the laying clause. The cases were referred to the Full Bench of which I was also a member. By a majority view, the Full Beech upheld the validity of the Rules. That case has been Ram Odar Jha and other V/s. State of Bihar and others, 1992 (1)PLJR 722. The cases were referred to the Full Bench of which I was also a member. By a majority view, the Full Beech upheld the validity of the Rules. That case has been Ram Odar Jha and other V/s. State of Bihar and others, 1992 (1)PLJR 722. According Jo the majority view the laying provisions under the Act are only directory in nature and, therefore, even If there was non-compliance thereof, that does not affect the validity of the Rules. In my separate judgment while agreeting with the said legal proposition, by referring to the materials and documents placed on the record. I also took the view that the Rules were, in fact, placed before both the Houses of the Legislature as required under the laying clause contained under Section 15 (2) of the Act. It appears that a Special Leave petition (Civil) No.18361 of 1991 has been filed before the Supreme Court against the said full Bench judgment of this court and by an order dated 16-12-1991 while issuing notice to the Respondents, the Supreme Court passed an interim order in the following terms ; "status quo as on date shall be maintained. " basing his submissions on this interim order the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has asserted that unless the correctness of the full Bench Judgment is finally adjudicated by the Supreme Court, the provisions of the Rules can not be given effect to and it should be deemed that the same are sot on the statute book. As such according to tha learned Counsel, the case of promotion of the petitioners should be decided by treating the schools as independent units. In my opinion, this argument is wholly misconceived and is fit to be rejected at the a very outset. The grant of status quo by the Supreme Court in a petition for grant of special leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, does not amount to overruling the judgment nor it has the effect of staying the enforcibility of the statutory Rules even in respect of such persons, who are not party to the proceedings before the Supreme Court. If the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners are accepted then it may lead to complete chaos in relation to the administration of secondary Schools because till the above said S. L. P. is finally decided by the Supreme Court, neither action can be taken by the administration nor any case be decided by the High Court by treating the Rules either as valid or invalid. Thus, there will be a complete stagnancy in the field of administering secondary education in the State of Bihar. This situation is unconceivable and can not be accepted. While sitting singly I had rejscted the very similar argument in the case of Tripurari Mishra V/s. State of Bihar, CWJC No.5434 of 1990 disposed of 11-3-1992 ba holding that "order of status quo can only affect the respective rights of the parties to the case. But till the judgment is reversed by the Supreme Court, so far as the ratio decidendi is concerned, it cannot loss its binding effect," I still hold the same view. 18. For the reasons, aforesaid, in my opinion, there is no merit in both the writ applications and the same are, accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. S. B. Sinha, J.- I agree with Brother Bharuka, J. but I would like to add a few words. 19. No person has a vested right of appointment. The posts of headmaster in Nationalised Schools are required to bs filled up in terms of the statutory Rules of the 1983. A person doss not dsrive any legal right to bs appointed even when an advertisement in that regard is issued and an application therefore is filled. The question as to whether a statutory Rules would apply when vacancy arose depends upon the scheme of the Rules and the policy decision of the State, 20. It is true that no statute or rule can be given retrospective effect unless It so provided for expressly or by necessary implication. 21. Bat the question which arises for consideration in these applications is as to whether the said rules would not apply to a case only because the vacancy arose prior to coming into force thereof, The answer to this question in my opinion, must be rendered in the negative. 22. 21. Bat the question which arises for consideration in these applications is as to whether the said rules would not apply to a case only because the vacancy arose prior to coming into force thereof, The answer to this question in my opinion, must be rendered in the negative. 22. In Y. V. Rangalas case, upon which strong reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in terns of the rules which were in force at the time when the vacancy arose ss also the instructions issued by the State from time to lime a panel was required to be prepared every year in September. The Supreme Court, therefore, held that a panel should have been prepared in the year 1976 and transfer and promotion to the post of Sub-Registrar thereto should have been made out of that panel. Had that been done, the petitioners thereof would have ranked higher than the respondent Nos.3 to 15 in the said panel. It is in that situation, the Supreme Court held that the vacancy which occurred prior to amended rules would be governed by the old rule and not by the amended Rule. 23. These observations, this evidently were made in view of the fact that the panel was requited to be prepared every year In terms of the statutory rule itself. No such rule has framed by the State of Bihar in this regard nor any instructions has been issued by it. It is now well known that a decision is an authority for what it decides and not what logically be deduced therefor. 24. In Dr. P. K. Jaiswal V/s. M/s. Debi Mukherjee and others, 1992 (2)SCC 148 the Supreme Court referred to the cases of N. T. Dev in Katti V/s. Public Service Commission (1990) (3) SCC 157 and Jatinder Kumar V/s. State of Punjab, 1985 (1) SCC 122 and held : "it is obvious from the ratio of these two decisions to which our attention was pointedly drawn that if the Commission issues an advertisement at the behest of the Government and pursuant thereto calls a candidate for interview, the candidate has a right to be considered for selection but not a right to be selected or to appointment to the post in question. The right to selection crystallises only after the candidate is called for interview pursuant to the advertisement. The right to selection crystallises only after the candidate is called for interview pursuant to the advertisement. But in the instant case the question Is whether the Government can withdraw the requisition sent to the Commission for initiating the process of selection because at that point of time no right had crystallised in any one for being considered for selection. If the Government is at a given point of time considering the question of amending the recruitment rules with a view to providing for promotion to the post in question, the Government can before an advertisement is issued by the commission and the process of Selection is under way request the Commission to withdraw the same till it decides on the question of amending the rules. The decision of the Government to withdraw the requisition sent to the commission in November, 1989 before the issuance of the advertisement does not interfere with any vested right to selection because that stage had yet not reached. In the instant case, that Is exactly what happened. Therefore, before the appellant acquired a right to be considered for selection the government had already intimated that it was examining the question of amending the recruitment rules with a view to providing for appointment by promotion to the post in question. Once this decision was communicated to the commission before it had set the process of selection in motion by issuing an advertisement, it was not open to the Commission to insist that it will go ahead with the selelection process as the extent rule provided for promotion by direct recruitment and the Government could amend the recruitment rules retrospectively, if It so desired, with a view to providing for appointment by promotion. Such an exercise by the Commission would be an exercise in futility, waste of pubiic time and money and hardship to candidates who seek appointment whether the provide for promotion as a mode of appointment to that post In question is a matter of policy left to the Government to decide and if it desired that the selection process should be held in abeyance till the question was examined and a final decision was taken thereon, it was not open to the commission to set the selection process in motion. " 25. " 25. It is therefore clear, that vacancy can only be filled up in terms of the rules existing at the time when process for selection starts if at all the state Intends to fill up the said vacancy. 26. It is not necessary for the state to fill up a vacancy only because the same exists, which depends on its policy decision. 27. It will be therefore not correct to contend that only because vacancies arose prior to 1983 ; the 1983 rules will have no application even though process of selection had not been started. 28. In this case, evidently the process of selection has not yet started and thus once the State intends to fill up the vacancy, the same has to be done in accordance with the 1983 Rules. 29. The other decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners do not advance their case as has rightly been pointed oat by my learned brother. 30. So far as the submission of the learned counsel to the effect that as the question relating to vires of 1983 rules is pending consideration before the Supreme Court and the interim order passed by the Supreme court, and therefore this court should not dispose of these writ petitions is concerned, the same is devoid of any merit, The Full Bench decision of this court in Ram Odhar Jha, (supra) in binding on this beach. So long the said decision is not set aside, the cases must be decided on the basis thereof. The Supreme Court has not even stayed the operation of the said judgment. An interim order passed by a count normally operate inter partes. 31. It was, however, suggested that the practice of this court in such a case is to await this decision of the Supreme Court we are not aware of any ruch practice. Indeed in Bishundeo Singh V/s. Union of India, 1983 BBCJ 55 Division bench of this court observed : - "learned counsel appearing for the respondents, however, pointed out that the Supreme Court has granted a special leave against the judgment of this court in ths case of Singasan Rabi Das and several other cases arising out of the provisions similar to Rule 47 in different rules are pending consideration before the Supreme Court. He also informed us that the Supreme court is to consider the ratio of the aforesaid judgment. The divisional Personnel Officer Southern Railway and another V/s. T. R. Challappan (supra ). In my opinion, till the said case of Challappan is not overruled by the Supreme Court it is binding on this court and the respondents were enjoined at least to hear the petitioners before imposing the penalty against them, even If they have decided not to hold any enquiry jo accordance with Rule 44 of the Rules. " 32. However, there cannot be any doubt that any appointment made to the post of the Headmaster either by way of promotion or direct recruitment in terms of 1983 Rules would be governed by the ultimate decision of the Supreme Court.