JUDGMENT S. Narain, J. This is an application under Articles 226 and. 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 13.2.78 of the Deputy Director of Education (School Education), Government of Bihar, respondent no. 1 to the writ petition, a copy of which was forwarded amongst others, to the petitioner by memo dated 24.4.78 and is Annexure 11 to the writ petition, by which the Deputy Director intimated to the petitioner that it was not possible to approve the appointment of the petitioner Shri Chandra Kumar Chakrvarty, an Assistant Teacher, and another teacher of the Rajkiya Madhya Vidyalay, Kidawaipuri Shiksha Kendra (hereinafter called 'the school') and to regard their services as having been nationalised. By the petition it is further prayed that a direction be issued to the respondents to recognise the services of the petitioner from the date of his appointment as a teacher whose services had been nationalised, and direct payment of arrears of salaries due to the petitioner. The District Education Officer, Patna, the Sub-divisional Education Officer Patna Sadar, the District Superintendent of Education Patna and the Headmaster of the school are respondents 2 to 5 respectively to the writ petition. 2. The relevant facts are these. The aforesaid School was an Elementary School managed by a Managing Committee. The School was recognised by the Education Department of the State Government with effect from 1.1.1973. It is, however common ground that the School was not an aided school as it did not receive any grants from the State Government or any local authority. The Managing Committee of the school by its resolution dated 25.11.73 appointed the petitioner formally as a Science Teacher in the School, affirming by that resolution the appointment of the petitioner by the Secretary of the School with effect from 1.10.73. The appointment was against a temporary post. The Managing Committee of the school by its resolution dated 25.11.73 appointed the petitioner formally as a Science Teacher in the School, affirming by that resolution the appointment of the petitioner by the Secretary of the School with effect from 1.10.73. The appointment was against a temporary post. Subsequently, by his order conveyed by Memo dated 23.12.1974 a copy whereof is Annexeure-3 to the writ petition, the Sub-divisional Education Officer, Patna Sadar, respondent No 3 on the basis of the recommendation of the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Patna city approved the appointment of the petitioner and another teacher of the School, subject to the condition that the two teachers would get themselves trained during the next session, It appears from the averment in paragraph 6 of the petition, which has not been controverted-though a counter affidavit purporting to be on behalf of the State of Bihar has been filed, that on 23.12.74 in accordance with the Elementary Schools Nationalisation Scheme, the School was taken over with effect from the date of recognition and, thereafter, payments of the teachers and other members of the staff of the school, except in the case of the petitioner and one more teacher began to be made by the State Government. As the salary of the petitioner was not paid the petitioner filed representation s to the Deputy Administrator, Patna Municipal Corporation, the Director of Education and the Education Minister in succession. It appears that in the course of the correspondence that followed the representations, the Sub-divisional Education Officer was asked to explain as to how the petitioners appointment had been approved against a post that had not been created and the Sub-divisional Education Officer stated that the relevant papers had been lost in the 1975 Flood and ultimately the Deputy Director, Education by his Impugned order contained in his letter dated 13.2.78 intimated to the petitioner that his appointment could not be approved and he cannot be regarded as a teacher whose services had been nationalised as his appointment was made against a post which was not sanctioned by the State Government. 3. The case of the petitioner briefly stated, is that the petitioner was a duly appointed teacher working In the school when the management of the School was taken over by the State Government, and therefore, by virtue of the provisions of section 4 (2) of the Bihar Non Govt. 3. The case of the petitioner briefly stated, is that the petitioner was a duly appointed teacher working In the school when the management of the School was taken over by the State Government, and therefore, by virtue of the provisions of section 4 (2) of the Bihar Non Govt. Elementary Schools Taking over of Control) Act, 1976 (hereinafter called the Act), which replaced the ordinance on the subject, he must be deemed to have been transferred to and become a teacher of the State Government and was entitled to hold office at the same remuneration and on the terms and conditions of Service as he would have held before the taking over the service unless and until that had been lawfully and duly altered by tile State Government. The further case of the petitioner is that the strength of pupil in the school in 1973 and 1974 was 375 and 389 respectively and that the number of teachers entitled to be appointed In the school was more than 12 and the Sub-divisional Education Officer and the authorities were under a misapprehension in thinking that the number of sanctioned posts of teachers in the school was only 9 and that, but for the loss of papers in flood in the office of the Sub-divisional Education Officer, Patna Sadar, it would have been established that the Sub-divisional Education Officer had presumably sanctioned the post held by the petitioner and thereafter approved his appointment. 4. On the other hand, the case of the respondents is that by his order dated 16.7.74 copy whereof is Annexure A to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents (Annexure-1 in the counter-affidavit is obviously a mistake for annexure-A), the Sub-divisional Education Officer, Patna Sadar had extended the recognition of the school until further orders, with 9 teachers as mentioned in the inspection report of the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Patna City and that the petitioner was not one of the teachers, who held the aforesaid 9 posts and, therefore, his services could not be approved and were not taken over and the that the approval granted by the Sub-divisional Education Officer to the appointment of the petitioner and another teacher was illegal as there were only 9 posts sanctioned. The further case of the respondents is that the approval granted by the Sub-divisional Education Officer, Patna Sadar, stood cancelled as the petitioner had not become a trained teacher. According to the respondents the appointment of the petitioner could not be approved in view of the order contained in letter no. 14, dated 26.6.75, which prohibits approval of the appointment of an untrained teacher appointed after 1.1.1971, and as the petitioner was admittedly appointed after 1.1.1971 and was admittedly untrained, the impugned order was perfectly legal and valid. 5. In my opinion, for the purposes of this case it is not necessary to go into the disputed question of fact whether the appointment of the petitioner was against a sanctioned or unsanctioned post, because on the admitted facts the application is bound to succeed. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was employed as a teacher in the school when the school was taken over by the Government. The government that he was appointed by the Managing Committee as an assistant Teacher of the school has not been controverted. It is also not disputed by the learned advocate appearing for the respondents that the Managing Committee was the appointing authority of teachers in schools managed by the Managing Committee and not in receipt of any grants by the State Government or a local authority. The first ground on which the appointment is impugned was that it is against an un sanctioned Post. My attention has not been drawn to any provision of law or any legal direction by which an appointment of a teacher made by the Managing Committee of a school which is not an aided school receiving any grants from the State or any local authority, is null and void because it was made against a post not sanctioned by the appropriate authority. Even assuming that the order granting recognition was subject to a condition that the number of sanctioned posts of teachers in the school was 9 and that even subsequently the number of sanctioned posts was not increased, in my opinion, the appointment of a teacher by the appropriate appointing authority, the Managing Committee, cannot be held to be null and void merely because it was in contravention of the order granting recognition. The contravention of the order granting recognition may entail serious consequences for the school inasmuch as it might result in de-recognition of the school but that by itself, in my opinion, can• not invalidate the appointment in the absence of a statutory provision prohibiting such an appointment by the Managing Committee of the non• aided school. As I have said earlier, my attention has not been drawn to any such provision. In the absence of any statutory rule or direction prohibiting the Managing Committee of an unaided school from appointing a person who was not trained as a teacher of any school, the circumstance that the petitioner was not a trained teacher also cannot, in my opinion: render his appointment as teacher null and void. Letter no. 14 dated 26.6.75, of the Education Commissioner, Government of Bihar, copy where of is Annexure C to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents no doubt provides that untrained teachers duly appointed by the Managing Committee till 1.1.1971 may be recognised and the services of teachers appointed after 1.1.1971 In contravention of the previous orders of the State Government should be terminated immediately but that order has no retrospective effect and it cannot in any way justify the termination of the services of a teacher with effect from 23.12.74 on which date the school was taken over. The action of the authorities in refusing to pay the salary of the petitioner after the take over has the consequence of terminating the services of the petitioner from 23.12.1974, and it cannot be supported in term of the order, copy where of is Annexure C to the counter-affidavit affirmed on behalf of the respondents. It is not necessary for me to decide whether the order of the State Government, copy where of is Annexure C to the counter-affidavit, is or is not in conformity with section 4 of the Act. because even assuming that the order is valid it cannot support the impugned order and the action taken by the respondents in refusing to pay salaries to the petitioner after the take over of the school. At any rate, though the order contained in Annexure C may empower the authorities to terminate the services of an untrained teacher, it cannot render the appointment of an untrained teacher made prior to the issue of this order, null and void. At any rate, though the order contained in Annexure C may empower the authorities to terminate the services of an untrained teacher, it cannot render the appointment of an untrained teacher made prior to the issue of this order, null and void. The petitioner, therefore, having been validly appointed as an assistant Teacher of the school must be deemed to be a teacher in the school on the date of the take over by the State Government unless his services had been terminated earlier. It has not been pleaded that the Managing Committee, the authority competent to terminate his services had terminated the services of the petitioner prior to the take over of the school. And in no case can the condition attached by the Sub-divisional Officer: Education to the approval of the appointment of the petitioner, be said to have effected the termination of the services of the petitioner. The approval was granted by letter dated 23.12.1974 subject to the condition vide the copy the letter of approval (Annexure 3 to this writ petition) that the petitioner would get himself trained in the next session. The school was taken over on 24.12.74. i.e., only a day later than the date of issue of this letter and, therefore, on 24.12.74, there was no contravention of the condition imposed. The petitioner, therefore, was a teacher of the school on the date of take over. 6. Section 1 of the Act deals with its title, extent and commencement; section 2 contains the definitions; section 3 provides for the taking over of the non-Government elementary schools by the State Government and section 4, which is the most important section for four purposes, is headed "Consequences of taking over" and, so far as is relevant, runs thus. "4. Consequences of taking over. "4. Consequences of taking over. (1) All the assets and properties whether movable or immovable owned or possessed by the schools taken over by the State Government under section 3 including lands, buildings, documents, books and registers relating to the schools shall stand transferred to and be deemed' to have come into the possession and ownership of the State Government; (2) Every Officer, teacher or other employee holding any office or post in the school taken over by the State Government shall be deemed to have been transferred to and become an officer, teacher or employee of the State Government with such designation as the State Government may determine and shall hold office by the same tenure, at the same remuneration and on the terms and conditions of a service as he would have held before the taking over of the said school and shall continue' to do so unless and until such tenure, remuneration, terms and conditions of service are duly altered by the State Government. Xx xx xx" Section 4 (2), therefore, in express terms provides that every teacher in the school taken over by the State Government shall be deemed to have been transferred to and become a teacher of the State Government and he shall hold office by the same tenure at the same remuneration and on the same terms and conditions of service as before the taking over untill the aforesaid terms, conditions etc. are duly altered by the State Government. The expression" every teacher in the school" in section 4 (2) is wide and Unqualified and, in my opinion. it comprehends within it even temporary teachers, whether rained or untrained. I have also, no doubt, that sub-section (2) properly construed means every teacher in the school on the date the order of take over of the school is passed and, not every teacher in the school on 1.1.1971 the date on which the Act is deemed to have come into force. Under section 3 it is only certain categories of schools mentioned in sub-section (1) of section 3 that are deemed o have been taken over by the State Government on 1.1.1971. The other categories of Schools are to be taken over from dates which have to be determined by the appropriate authority, specified in sub-sections (2) and (3). Under section 3 it is only certain categories of schools mentioned in sub-section (1) of section 3 that are deemed o have been taken over by the State Government on 1.1.1971. The other categories of Schools are to be taken over from dates which have to be determined by the appropriate authority, specified in sub-sections (2) and (3). In the context, therefore, the expression "every officer, teacher or other employee holding any office or post in the school taken over the State Government "cannot mean" every officer etc. in the school on l.1.71. It must be remembered that the Act makes no provision for teachers who were serving in the school on the actual date of take over but were appointed subsequent to 1.1.1971. If the intention of the Legislature was that only the services of teachers or employees of the schools serving on 1.1.71 would be taken over, the Act would have surely made some provision in respect of teacher appointed subsequent to 1.1.71 and prior to the date of passing of the order of take over. It must also be remembered that the scheme of nationalisation which is enacted by this Act was designed as a measure beneficial to the teachers and employees of the school taken over and the provisions of section 4 have, therefore to receive a beneficial interpretation. where two interpretations are possible that which is beneficial to the teachers of tile schools taken over should be adopted. Regard being had to the context and the object of the Act, I have no doubt, in my mind that all teachers or employees of the schools taken over, serving on the date the order of taking over, are entitled to the benefit of sub-section (2) of section 4. By virtue of section (2) of section 4, therefore, the petitioner became a teacher of the State Government and is entitled to hold office the same tenure at the same remuneration and on the terms and conditions of service as he would have held before the taking over of the school and shall continue to do so until and unless those terms and conditions etc. have been duly alterted by the State Government. Under sub section (2). have been duly alterted by the State Government. Under sub section (2). therefore, the petitioner had a statutory right to be recognised as a teacher of the State Government and the impugned order being in contravention of that statutory right is null and void and must be struck down. 7. I may state that the learned Advocates appearing for the State Government and the petitioner both asked me to proceed on the footing that the school had been validly taken over. I have so proceeded and refrained from going into the question whether an elementary school which is not specified either under sub-section (1), sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of section 4 can be that taken over by the State Government under section 4 of the Act. 8. I would, accordingly, allow the application, set aside the impugned order issued under the signature of' the Deputy Director of Education, copy where of is Annexure 11 to the writ petition, and direct the respondents to treat the petitioner as a teacher of the State Government within the meaning of the expression used in sub-section (2) of section 4 and to pay to the petitioner all arrears of pay etc. to which he may be entitled from the date of take over. The petitioner will be entitled to the costs of this application. Hearing fee Rs. 100/-only. Application allowed.