Judgment 1. The petitioner in this writ application has made a prayer for quashing an order dated 1-5-1979 issued by the Director (Primary Education), Bihar disapproving the appointment of the petitioner as an assistant teacher in Maharshi Patanjali Middle School, Jehanabad in the district of Gaya (hereinafter to be referred to as the school). A copy of the said order is Annexure-1 to the writ application. 2. It appears that the petitioner was appointed an assistant teacher in the school on 1-7-1971 by the managing committee of the said school. He was confirmed on 15-3- 1972. He was an untrained Matric. The Bihar Non-Government Elementary Schools (Taking Over of Control) Act, 1976 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) came in force and in accordance with the provisions of the said Act different middle and primary schools, known as elementary schools, have been taken over by the State Government. The school in question was also taken over in accordance with the provisions of the said Act with effect from 30-3-1977. The petitioner continued to be an assistant teacher of the said school even thereafter. Ultimately on 1-5-1979, the impugned order was issued by the Directed (Primary Education), Bihar saying that as the petitioner was untrained matric and had been appointed after 1-1-1971, his appointment in the said school was not being recognised because it was against the State Governments scheme of the nationalisation of the schools. A copy of this order is Annexure-1 to the writ application. 3. According to the petitioner, he having been appointed by the managing committee to the school, which was the competent authority to appoint him, and later confirmed by the said Committee, the State Government has no authority to terminate his services or not to approve his appointment as such. 4. It appears that a letter No. 14 dated 29-6-1975 was issued by the Education Commissioner, Bihar saying that the Government had taken a decision in respect of untrained teachers appointed by the managing committee of the schools. The relevant portion of the decision of the State Government mentioned in the said letter is that the State Government had decided to recognise the services cf untrained teachers appointed in different schools by the managing committee till 1-1-1971. The services of the untrained teachers who have been appointed after 1-1-1971 were to be terminated. The relevant portion of the decision of the State Government mentioned in the said letter is that the State Government had decided to recognise the services cf untrained teachers appointed in different schools by the managing committee till 1-1-1971. The services of the untrained teachers who have been appointed after 1-1-1971 were to be terminated. The stand of the respondents appears to be that as the petitioner was appointed on 1-7-1971, i.e., after 1-1-1971, he being an untrained matric, his appointment could not have been recognised by the State Government after the school was taken over under the provisions of the Act. 5. Even when the schools were under the management of the private managing committees, the State Government used to issue different directions because many such private schools used to receive aids from the State Government, and in case of contravention of such decisions, the State Government could have stopped granting; aid, but the statutory control over such schools has vested in the State Government after coming intoiorce of the aforesaid Act. As such, it has to be examined as to whether it is open to the State Government to disapprove or de-recognise the appointment of the petitioner in the said school which was made as early as in the year 1971. It cannot be disputed that during the relevant period the managing committee of the said school was competent to appoint the petitioner and to confirm him to the said post. 6. The relevant portions of S. 3 of the Act are as follows : "3(1). Elementary schools managed by the District Board, Zila Parishad, the Municipal Board, and the Patna Municipal Corporation, and those opened under the Expansion and Improvement Scheme shall be deemed to have been taken over by the State Government with effect from the 1st day of January, 1971. (2) xx xx xx xx (3) Elementary Schools administered by any public or private undertakings shall be taken over by the State Government by publication of a notification in the official gazette with effect from the date to be specified therein. (4)(a). With regard to the taking over of Elementary schools other than those mentioned in Sub-sections (1) and (3) there shall be a District Committee in each district which shall examine the feasibility of taking over of such schools by the State Government and which shall consist of the following members...... (4)(a). With regard to the taking over of Elementary schools other than those mentioned in Sub-sections (1) and (3) there shall be a District Committee in each district which shall examine the feasibility of taking over of such schools by the State Government and which shall consist of the following members...... (b) The State Government may from time to time make changes in the personnel of the District Committee so constituted." In view of the specific provisions contained under S. 3(1), all elementary schools managed by the District Board, Zila Parishad, Municipal Board and the Patna Municipal Corporation will be deemed to be statutorily transferred with effect from 1-1-1971. So far as the types of schools mentioned in sub- ss. (3) and (4) of S. 3 are concerned, they are to be taken over after a decision to that effect is taken by the State Government. As such, the school in question was taken over by the State Government after a decision was taken to take over the same with effect from 30-3- 1977. S. 4 of the Act provides for the consequences of taking over. S. 4(2), which is relevant for the present case, is as follows : "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 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." In view of the aforesaid sub-s. (2) of S. 4 every teacher of the school, which has been taken over by the State Government, shall be deemed to have been transferred to and become teacher and employee of the State Government. It appears that in purported exercise of the powers conferred by sub-s. (4) of S. 3 aforesaid the State Government decided to take over the school in question with effect from 30-3-1977. It appears that in purported exercise of the powers conferred by sub-s. (4) of S. 3 aforesaid the State Government decided to take over the school in question with effect from 30-3-1977. From a letter dated 30-3-1977 addressed by the Regional Deputy Director of Education to the District Superintendent of Education, Gaya it appears that the State Government had decided to take over the said school on the condition mentioned in that letter. That letter specifically says that the school was being taken over along with its 5 teachers, including the petitioner. It is also mentioned that the petitioner was an untrained matric and arrangement should be made for the training of such teachers who were not trained. A copy of this letter is Annexure-5 to the writ application. 7 We are not able to appreciate as to how after two years of the communication of the decision of the State Government by the Regional Deputy Director of Education to the District Superintendent of Education by the aforesaid letter, the impugned communication dated 1-5-1979 was issued saying that as the petitioner was untrained matric and had been appointed after 1-1- 1971, as such his appointment being against the Take-Over Scheme of the State Government, was not being approved. It has already been pointed out that in the letter dated 30-3-1977 (annexure-5) the Regional Deputy Director of Education had asked the District Superintendent of Education to make arrangement for the training of the untrained teachers, including the petitioner. There is nothing on the record to show that the petitioner declined to undergo the said training. On the other hand, the petitioner has annexed letters from which it appears that he was all along willing to join any training institution. 8. Learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents has drawn our attention to aforesaid letter No. 14 dated 26-6-1975 and submitted that it had been made clear by that letter that the State Government, shall recognise only untrained teachers, who had been appointed prior to 1-1-1971 by the managing committee, and as the petitioner was appointed after that date, the State Government was not bound to recognise such appointment. It cannot be disputed that the Act under which the school has been taken over was enacted after the aforesaid letter had been issued. It cannot be disputed that the Act under which the school has been taken over was enacted after the aforesaid letter had been issued. In exercise of the statutory power the school has been taken over in the year 1977, and, as such, the terms and conditions of the teachers of the said school shall be governed primarily by the provisions of the Act itself, S. 4 provides the consequences of taking over of such schools. Sub-s. (2) of S. 4 clearly says that every teacher holding any post in the school which has been taken over by the State Government shall be deemed to have been transferred to and become teacher of the State Government and shall hold office by the same tenure, at the same remuneration, and on terms and conditions of service as he would have held before taking over of the said school, until such tenure, remuneration, terms and conditions of service are altered by the State Government. The petitioner was holding the post of a teacher on the date of the take-over of the school, and, as such, it will be deemed that since that date he became anemployee of the State Government. Can it be said that as the petitioner was an untrained teacher, in eye of law he was not holding the post of a teacher in the said school on the day the school was taken over by the State Government? Whatever may be said in respect of the appointments which were irregular or illegal in some manner on the date a particular school was taken over by the State Government, but so far as the present case is concerned, in the order by which the school was taken over, it was specifically mentioned that the said school was being taken over by the State Government along with 5 teachers including the petitioner. As such, the petitioner can legitimately urge that his services stood transferred since the date of take-over, and under the order aforesaid, this fact was recognised and thereafter he had to join a training institute for which he has been trying from time to time. As such, the petitioner can legitimately urge that his services stood transferred since the date of take-over, and under the order aforesaid, this fact was recognised and thereafter he had to join a training institute for which he has been trying from time to time. In our opinion, it is difficult to hold, in the circumstances mentioned above, that when the school was taken over, the petitioner was not holding a post of teacher in the said school either factually or in eye of law so as not to derive the statutory benefit of sub-s. (2) of S. 4 of becoming an employee of the State Government. On behalf of the petitioner it was rightly pointed out that consequences of taking over have been provided in the statute itself and the court should not easily come to the conclusion, unless adequate materials are produced in a particular case, that a particular employee or teacher who was holding the office or post in the said school was factually or in eye of law was not holding that post so as not to derive the benefit of sub-s. (2) of S. 4. 9. In the result, this writ application is allowed and the order as contained in Annexure-1 not recognising the appointment of the petitioner in the said school is quashed. We also direct that the District Superintendent of Education, Gaya, shall make arrangements for admission of the petitioner in some training institution from which he can become a trained matric. For this, the petitioner should also approach the authorities concerned. The petitioner shall also be entitled for arrears of salary at a scale prescribed for an untrained matric preferably within six months from the date of receipt of this order, because he will be deemed to be in service of the said school for all these years. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.