Removal-of-difficulty provisions cannot replace rule-making power; suspension upheld under remaining administrative instructions.

Section 8 of the Bihar Non-Government Elementary Schools (Taking Over of Control) Act, 1976 is only a removal-of-difficulty provision and cannot be used as a substitute for the express rule-making power under Section 7 or as a basis for binding subordinate legislation. Notifications purporting to derive authority from Section 8 were inconsistent, confusing, and beyond its limited scope, so they were invalid. After those notifications were struck down, the suspension order was tested against the remaining administrative instructions, which required the District Superintendent of Education to act after obtaining orders from the Chairman of the Committee. Suspension as an interim disciplinary measure was within settled authority, and the order was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether Section 8 of the Bihar Non-Government Elementary Schools (Taking Over of Control) Act, 1976 could be used as a substitute for the express rule-making power under Section 7, and whether the impugned suspension order was sustainable.

Analysis: Section 8 is only a removal-of-difficulty provision meant to facilitate implementation of the Act and cannot be treated as a source of subordinate legislation or a basis for issuing binding statutory instructions in place of rules framed under Section 7. The notifications issued purporting to derive authority from Section 8 were inconsistent, confusing, and beyond the limited scope of that provision, and were therefore invalid. Once those notifications were struck down, the challenge to the suspension order had to be tested against the remaining administrative instructions, under which the District Superintendent of Education was to act after obtaining orders from the Chairman of the Committee. Suspension as an interim measure pending disciplinary action is a settled power and, on the facts, the impugned order could not be said to be without authority.

Conclusion: Section 8 could not be used as a cloak for subordinate legislation or as a substitute for the rule-making power under Section 7, and the challenge to the suspension order failed.

---