Judgment G. C. Bharuka, J. 1. This writ application has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the orders dated 13-4-1992 and 2-4-1991 passed by the respondent Director, Secondary Education (Annexures-l and 1/a respectively), By Annexure-1/a respondent No.3, Bishwanath Singh, has been transferred as the Headmaster in Multipurpose Higher Secondary School, buxar (hereinafter in short the School) and by Annexure-1 the claim of the petitioner to promote him as Headmaster of the said school by treating the same as an independent unit has been rejected. 2. The admitted facts may be noticed first. The school has been nationalised on 2-10-1980 under the provisions of the Bihar non-Government Secondary School (Taking over of Management and Control)Ordinance, 1980 The provisions whereof were subsequently incorporated in an Act of 1981. The post of the Headmaster in the school had fallen vacant much prior to its nationalisation and therefore, on 29-7-1980 one Sri Daya Shauker Singh was transferred as Headmaster of the school because of this the seniormost teacher of the school Sri Ramavatar prasad Sinha challenged the said transfer by filing a writ application in the High Court being C. W. J. C. No.1952 of 1980 on the ground that in view of the Government decisions and directives, the vacant post of Headmaster had to be filled up promoting the seniormost teacher of th,e school fulfilling eligibility and suitability criteria and not by transferring any other person from other school. This Court after elaborate discussions allowed the writ application by its judgment dated 20th May, 1983 and after quashing the order of transfer directed the respondents to consider his case for appointment to the post of Headmaster of the school along with other eligible assistant teachers by treating the school as an unit. But before Sri Ramavatar Prasad Sinha could have been favoured with the promotion, he superannuated on 30th April, 1983. The Headmaster of the school Sri Daya Shanker Singh however left the school only on October, 1986 and-thereafter, according to the petitioner, he started functioning as acting Headmaster. 3. Mr. But before Sri Ramavatar Prasad Sinha could have been favoured with the promotion, he superannuated on 30th April, 1983. The Headmaster of the school Sri Daya Shanker Singh however left the school only on October, 1986 and-thereafter, according to the petitioner, he started functioning as acting Headmaster. 3. Mr. Rajendsa Prasad Singh, learned eounsel appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that even if the post of Headmaster had fallen vacant after nationalisation but before coming into force of the Bihar nationalised Secondary Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1983 then such post has to be filled up from amongst the seniormost teacher of the school by treating the school as an unit and since the petitioner after superannuation of the aforesaid Sri Ramavatar Prasad Sinha was the senior most teacher in the school, therefore, he is entitled to such a promotion to the post of Headmaster. In support of his submission he has relied on a Bench decision of this Court in the ease of Madan Kant mishra V/s. The State of Bihar and others, 1983 PLJR 107. 4. In our opinion, the submissions of Mr. Singh are not tenable because in Madan Kant Mishras case it has been specifically noticed in paragraph 5 that since the act of promotion was performed prior to enforcement of the Rules, therefore, it does not in the way effect the said promotion because Rule 21 provides for such savings. A Bench of this Court in C. W. J. C. No.2390/89 disposed of on 27-11-1992 in which one of us (G, C. Bharuka, J.) was a Member has after detailed consideration of the entire aspect and discussing in detail in Madan Kant Mishras case (supra) has taken the view that the post of Headmaster falling vacant in Nationalised schools after 2-10-1980 are to be filled up by treating the same to be of State cadre in accordance with the statutory rules and not by treating the school as an independent unit as it was the case relating to the post fallen vacant prior to 2-10-1980. 5. In the above view of the matter, in our opinion, the petitioner is not entitled to any promotion to the post of Headmaster by treating the school in question as an independent unit and as such, there is no infirmity in the impugned orders as contained in Annexures-1 and 1/a respectively. The writ application is accordingly dismissed. 5. In the above view of the matter, in our opinion, the petitioner is not entitled to any promotion to the post of Headmaster by treating the school in question as an independent unit and as such, there is no infirmity in the impugned orders as contained in Annexures-1 and 1/a respectively. The writ application is accordingly dismissed. But we may observe that if the petitioner is otherwise found to be eligible for being promoted to the post of Headmaster keeping in view the provisions contained in the statutory rules then he will be entitled to such benefit keeping in view his eligibility and suitability. There will be no order as to costs. Writ application dismissed.