Judgment G. C. Bharuka, J. 1. - The present writ application has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 20-5-1992 (Annexure-11) passed by the Respondent No.3, pirector, Secondary Education, by which he has, inter oha, directed that the petitioner be transferred from her existing school to some other school in the district and Smt. Beena Kumari, respondent No.7, be allowed to remain in that school. 2. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the selection of the petitioner by the Bihar Sewa Board on the post of assistant teacher in history, an appointment letter dated 4-10-1988 (Annexure-1) was issued by the Respondent director and she was posted in a high school at Barkagaon in the district of Muzaffarpur. In the last paragraph of the appointment letter it is mentioned that if there be no vacancy in the school of posting then the District Education Officer will adjust the teacher concerned in another school where there may be vacant post of the subject concerned and the same may be communicated to the Directorate. Since no post of history teacher was vacant in the school of original posting of the petitioner, the district Education Officer as per order dated 27-10-1988 (Annexure-2)posted her in Sarai Syed Ali Girls High School, Muzaffarpur (in short the school) on the post which had fallen vacant because of promotion/transfer of one Smt. Malti Verma, where she is still working. 3. It appears that thereafter the then Regional Deputy Director of education, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur (R. D. D. E.) passed an order as contained in Annexure-3 transferring and posting 18 teachers from one school to another including respondent No.7, who has been transferred from Girls High School, Hardi to the school in question allegedly in place of Smt. Malti Verma, who had since been transferred to some other school. According to the petitioner this order of transfer was passed by the respondent - R. D D E. without there being any recommendation of the divisional Level Establishment Committee as required under Rule 12 of the bihar National Secondary Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules.1983 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules only ). 4. Admittedly Respondent No 7 is a teacher of economics. 4. Admittedly Respondent No 7 is a teacher of economics. The principal of the school accepted the joining of the respondent No.7 but communicated to the District Education Officer that there is no post of economics teacher vacant in the school vide letter dated 30-10-1989 as contained in Annexure 5 to the writ application, which was then referred by the Respondent District Education Officer to the Director, Respondent no.3. The Director by his communication dated 7-12-1989 (Annexure-7)ordered that the petitioner may be allowed to continue in the school and the services of the respondent No.7 be returned to the school from which she has been transferred or she may be adjusted in some other school where the post of her subject may be available. Thereafter the respondent-Director issued another order dated 4-5-1990 (Annexure-9) directing that the respondent No.7 be adjusted against the post of a Urdu teacher which had fallen vacant pursuant to the transfer of one Smt. Ithrat Jama and salary be paid to her as per the rules. Curiously by another order dated 27th December, 1991 (Annexure 10) the respondent-Director directed that another teacher Smt. Ishrat Kashmi be transferred and adjusted against the vacant post of Urdu teacher in the school and accordingly Smt. Ishrat Kashmi joined the school Since respondent No.7, though a teacher in economics, has been working on a vacant post of Urdu teacher pursuant to the order of the respondent-Director and that post of Urdu teacher having been filed up by the transfer of another Urdu teacher, again problem arose regarding payment of salary to the respondent No.7. It seems that to meet the situation the impugned order as contained in annexure- I has been passed whereby it was directed that Smt. Ishrat kasmi will get working as Urdu teacher in the school and if there be any post regained vacant then the respondent No.7 may be paid her salary but so far as the petitioner is concerned should be transferred to some other school in the district. 5. Admittedly the petitioner is a teacher in history and the respondent no.7 is a teacher in economics. further Smt. Malti Verma pursuant to whose transfer the post in the school had fallen vacant was a teacher in civics. 5. Admittedly the petitioner is a teacher in history and the respondent no.7 is a teacher in economics. further Smt. Malti Verma pursuant to whose transfer the post in the school had fallen vacant was a teacher in civics. Therefore, neither the petitioner nor the respondent No.7 could have been transferred and posted in that school since no post of teacher either in history or in economics was vacant. 6. First coming to the order as contained in Annexure 2 passed by the respondent-District Education Officer, by which the petitioner has been posted in the school, it is clear that this order has been passed in clear violation of the direction contained in the letter of appointment as contained in Annexure-1 inasmuch as if the post of a history teacher was not available in the school of initial posting of the petitioner, the District education Officer could have adjusted and posted her only in a school where the post of a history teacher was available. In the present case admittedly Smt. Malti Verma was a teacher in Civics and the petitioner could not have been posted on the post which had fallen vacant on transfer of Smt. Malti Verma, a Civics teacher. Therefore, this order per se was illegal. 7. Similar is the situation with regard to the order of transfer as contained in Annexure 3 by which the respondent No.7 has been transferred to the school. This order has been passed by the then R. D. D. E. just one day before his date of superannuation. It is a matter of record that this order of transfer was passed in gross violation of the statutory provisions contained in Rule 12 of the Rules. It has been admitted in the counter-affidavit that the Divisional Level Establishment Committee had no occasion to consider the validity or desirability of the transfer as contained in Annexure-3 at any subsequent stage and it was never approved by the said Committee. The respondent No.7 made a false assenion in this regard in her counter-affidavit. Further since there was no post vacant of economics in the school in question it was wholly incompetent on the part of the respondent-Director to transfer respondent No.7 in the school in question. The respondent No.7 made a false assenion in this regard in her counter-affidavit. Further since there was no post vacant of economics in the school in question it was wholly incompetent on the part of the respondent-Director to transfer respondent No.7 in the school in question. The respondent-Director has also acted in a most illegal and irresponsible manner in ordering transfer of respondent No.7 or allowing her to remain in the school against the post of a Urdu teacher. He had no authority to pass any order of this nature under the provisions of the act and the Rules. Thus this action on the part of the respondent-Director merely speaks of manipulation and unwarranted Pairvis even at the Directorate level. It is expected that the responsible officer like the director of Secondary Education should act in a more responsible manner in order to promote the general cause of secondary education in the State instead of creating confusions and allowing the things to further deteriorate. At this stage it is also necessary to state that one Dr. G. P. Giri, deputy Director of Secondary Education claiming to be working under respondent No.3 in para 13 of the first counter-affidavit sworn by him had deliberately made a false statement that the order of transfer (Annexure-3) passed by R. D. D. E. transferring the respondent No.7 the school in question was subsequently approved by the Establshtnent committee. During the course of hearing of the case on 1-12-1992 when the said fact was challenged by the petitioner, we directed the deponent of the affidavit to produce the relevant document to substantiate the above said statement and then a second counter-affidavit has been by him wherein it was admitted that no meeting of the Establishment Committee was held to consider the matter of transfer of respondent No.7 and no record of establishment committee is available for being produced before this Court. I am constrained to hold that above facts only demonstrate extremely sad state of affairs prevailing in the Education Department relating to Secon-dary education in the State of Bihar. Even the highly placed officers like director and Deputy Director have sought to involve themselves as parties in illegal acts and have even gone to the extent of making false statements in Court for some petty gains of individual teacher of the school, It is high time that the concerned officers should start correcting themselves. Even the highly placed officers like director and Deputy Director have sought to involve themselves as parties in illegal acts and have even gone to the extent of making false statements in Court for some petty gains of individual teacher of the school, It is high time that the concerned officers should start correcting themselves. 8. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, both the orders as contained in Annexure 2 and Annexure 11 by which the petitioner and the respondent No.7 are posted in the school in question are hereby quashed with a direction to the Divisional Level Establishment Committee to transfer these teachers to the vacant posts of their respective subjects appropriate secondary schools. The decision should be taken within two weeks from the date of communication of this order. 9. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of with the aforementioned directions and observations. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Respondent-Director for his perusal and necessary action.