Judgment S.B. Sinha, J. This writ petition is directed against an order dated 9.9.1992 issued by the Director of Secondary Education (Respondent no. 2) as contained in Annexure-11 to the writ application, whereby the transfer of the petitioner to High School, Manjhagarh has been made effective. 2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. 3. According to the petitioner while he was serving in the School in question, certain allegations have been made against him. Allagedly by order dated 30th June, 1991 he along with three other persons were transferred. The said order dated 30th June, 1991 is contained in Annexure-6 to the writ application. The petitioner thereafter filed representation before the Minister of Human Resources Development which was duly recommended by a local M.L.A. and by office order dated 21.12.1991 as contained in Annexure-8 to the writ application, the said order of transfer has been cancelled. The petitioner has contended that Respondent no. 6 had been working on deputation in the said School by an order passed by the Regional Deputy Director, Saran from September, 1991. One Paras Nath Yadav was transferred from High School, Tajpur to High School, Sitabdiara. The aforementioned Paras Nath Yadav and Bhagwat Prasad Singh filed an application for quashing the order dated 21.12.1991 (Annexure-8 to the writ application) and a Division Bench of this Court (of which one of us, S.B. Sinha, J. was a Member) by an order dated 2.7.1992 (Annexure-9 to the writ application) quashed the order of Director dated 21.12.1991. However, by reason of the said order both the petitioner as also Respondent no. 6 were permitted to work in the said School till the fresh order was passed by the Director, Secondary Education. 4. Thereafter by reason of the impugned order dated 9.9.1992 as contained in Annexure. 11 to the writ application, earlier order of transfer passed as against the petitioner which is contained in Annexure-6 to the application has been affirmed. 5. Mr. Harendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has principally raised two contentions on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that the Director, Secondary Education had no authority to pass the impugned order. Learned counsel further submitted that in any event the order of transfer as contained in Annexure6 has been passed by way of punishment, the same could not have been reiterated by reason of the impugned order. Learned counsel submitted that the Director, Secondary Education had no authority to pass the impugned order. Learned counsel further submitted that in any event the order of transfer as contained in Annexure6 has been passed by way of punishment, the same could not have been reiterated by reason of the impugned order. 6. Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent no. 6, on the other hand, submitted that the impugned order has been passed pursuant to the direction of this Court and the same cannot be held to be illegal. It has further been submitted that the Director upon receipt of the order of this Court dated 2.7.1992 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 54 of 1992 directed the District Education Officer to furnish the bio data of the teachers of the said School in question who in turn directed the Head-master to furnish a report. In paragraphs 8 & 9 of the caveat application, Respondent no. 6 has stated as follows : "That it is pertinent to state that total strength of the teaching staff of the School is 15 in number, including the Headmaster, out of which five teachers belong to the Science group and 10 belong to the Arts Group, including the petitioner. The number of the teachers subject-wise and the total number of the period in a week of the said subjects are given hereunder :- Science Group Subject Math Number of Teachers Periods 48 Two including the caveator. Physics 1 14 Chemistry 1 14 Biology 1 12 Arts Group History 1 14 Geography 2 12 (including writ petitioner) Hindi 3 12 English 2 60 Sanskrit 1 60 Physical 32 Instructor 1. That admittedly, the writ petitioner is a teacher of geography as has been admitted by himself and he is so been appointed and there were two teachers in Geography, including the writ petitioner and the period targts were only 12 in a week, whereas, in Mathematics subject; there are 48 periods and there are only two Science Teachers, including the Caveator and as such the Director, Secondary Education, taking into consideration all these facts, passed order, which has been impugned in the instant writ application." 7. There cannot be any doubt that in view of Rule 12 of the Bihar 'Secondary School (Condition of Service) Rules, 1983 an Assistant teacher can be transferred only on the recommendation of the Divisional Level Committee. There cannot be any doubt that in view of Rule 12 of the Bihar 'Secondary School (Condition of Service) Rules, 1983 an Assistant teacher can be transferred only on the recommendation of the Divisional Level Committee. The Director of Secondary Education or any other higher authority had no jurisdiction to pass the order of transfer so far as an assistant teacher is concerned. The petitioner on his own showing was appointed in Rai Saheb Kalika Singh High School, Khalpura, the School in question, since the date of his appointment took place in the year 1983 as a Geography teacher. 8. In terms of the provisions of the aforementioned 1983 Rules as amended in the year 1988 a statutory mandate has been issued to transfer an Assistant teacher after a period of five years. The petitioner therefore, had no legal right to continue in the said School after the said period. 9. Although as noticed hereinbefore in terms of 1983 Rules, the Director of Secondary Education to transfer an assistant teacher, but, the impugned order has been passed in the light of the direction of this Court. As the petitioner does not have any legal right to continue in the said School, in my opinion, the petitioner shall not be prejudiced in any manner, if the impugned order is allowed to stand. Further evidently the said order had to be passed as the earlier order of transfer of the petitioner as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ application was cancelled by the aforementioned order dated 21.12.1991 (Annexure-8) on political considerations. In such a situation, the Director of Secondary Education being the Head of the Department was directed by this Court to take into consideration the relevant facts and pass necessary orders. 10. So far as the contention of the petitioner to the effect that he was transferred by way of or in lieu of punishment, I find no substance therein. The petitioner himself has annexed various documents to show that his good services has been acknowledged by the Head-master of the School. Even the petitioner has accepted the fact that he was transferred along with several other teachers by reason of the said order of transfer, therefore, no stigma has been cast upon the petitioner. 11. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in this application, which is, accordingly dismissed.