Judgment U. P. Singh J. 1. By this application the petitioners have challenged the validity of the impugned notification dated 30-7-1982 contained in Annexure-8 therein the petitioners were not included in the list of approved teachers of kanya Uchch Vidalaya, Obra. It has been fairly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that he is not seeking any relief against respondents 6 to 8, who have been so appointed under Annexure-4. 2. The said institution was founded and started functioning with effect from 23rd January, 1978 and respondents 9 to 10 were the secretary and the president of the said Vidyalaya. Against the vacancy for the post of Assistant teachers,the petitioner No.1 filed an application and by letter dated 25-7-1980 she was appointed as Assistant teacher and joined the post sometime in August 1980 and since then she has been teaching the students regularly to the satisfaction of the concerned authorities. In between the period 3-8-1981 to 24-4-1982 she proceeded for the training course and joined the said Vidyalaya on 26-4-1982. The second petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher by letter dated 30th july 1979 and joined the said post sometime in August 1979 and since then she has been teaching the students. The third petitioner as well joined the post of assistant teacher in the said school in April 1979 pursuant to his appointment in March 79 and since then he has been discharging his duties as an Assistant teacher. The petitioner No.3 also passed the training course in the year 1982 from the Ranchi University and petitioner No.2 after getting permission from the Department, completed the training course in the year 1982-83 from the magadh University, Gaya, and the result was published in the year 1985. 3. After granting recognition to the said School by notification dated 30-7-1982, the Government took over the Management and control of the said vidayalaya and six Assistant teachers were appointed vide the impugned notification contained in Annexure-4 but the name of these petitioners in the list of approved teachers were not included. The petitioners then made a representation to respondent No.9 as to why and under what circumstances they were not so appointed, although they have been working in the said Vidyalaya since long even before the publication of the said notification. 4. The petitioners then made a representation to respondent No.9 as to why and under what circumstances they were not so appointed, although they have been working in the said Vidyalaya since long even before the publication of the said notification. 4. The sole grievance of the petitioners is that even though they were eligible to be appointed as Assistant teachers, but their names were arbitrarily excluded from the list of working teachers and without affording any opportunity to them, the Government notification contained in Annexure-4 was published violating principles of natural justice. 5. Section 3 of the Bihar Non-Government Secondary School (Management and Taking over) Ordinance, 1981 requires that, before the management and control of a school is take over, committee will be appointed by the government, who will enquire about the suitability of the working teachers, clerks and peons to be retained in service. The grievance of the petitioners is that no such enquiry was conducted by any committee before the impugned notification was issued and as such the impugned notification was violative of section 3 of the Bihar Non-Government Secondary schools (Management and taking over) Ordinance, 1981. 6. The consequence of the said taking over of the institution is provided in Sec.4 of the Ordinance and the relevant Sec.4 (2) reads as follows:- "every officer, teacher or other employees holding any office or post in the school take over by the State Government shall be deemed to have been transferred to and become an officer, teacher or employee of the State Government. " It was thus contended that since the petitioners were working as teachers, before the impugned order was issued, and the same has not been controverted, the exclusion of the petitioners name is illegal and arbitrary. 7. There is no counter-affidavit specifically dealing with the case of these petitioners and a general statement has been made that enquiry by a committee was not relevant. There is no categorical denial of the existance of the services of the petitioners in the school in question on which they continued ever since before the impugned notification was issued. Having full qualification of an assistant teacher, they were appointed in the said institution. On further facilities extended to them, they acquired additional qualification by completing the training course. There is no categorical denial of the existance of the services of the petitioners in the school in question on which they continued ever since before the impugned notification was issued. Having full qualification of an assistant teacher, they were appointed in the said institution. On further facilities extended to them, they acquired additional qualification by completing the training course. Therefore, in absence of any categorical denial of their assertion made in the writ application, the admitted portion is that they had been regularly appointed as Assistant teachers and were serving in the institution over since before the publication of the impugned notification. It is neither alleged nor suggested that these petitioners were either untrained or under-graduate or that they were not on the working roll of the institution when the inspection was conducted sometimes in August 1980. The said committee however, at the time of inspection of the school while considering the feasibility of its being taken over, did not include the names of these petitioners in the report on the sole ground that they were untrained at the relevant time. In order to meet the said ground, my attention has been drawn by the petitioners counsel to a very relevant circular of the Government contained in Annexure-9 issued on 21st december, 1982, and reference was made to Clause (Jha) which deals with the policy regarding recognition of service of the teachers of Secondary Schools prior to its taking over. Clause jha therein provides that in those schools, which are to be taken over, the recognition of the appointment of teachers under training in the training Colleges, recognised by University under the State government, should be given provisionally if that is within the Sanctioned strength. In the case of their failure in the training examination, the services of such teachers shall be deemed to be automatically terminated. Till the publication of their result of the training examination, they shall be paid only a stippend of Rs.500/- per month. Their seniority in the services will, however, be contend from the date of the passing of the training examination. Till the publication of their result of the training examination, they shall be paid only a stippend of Rs.500/- per month. Their seniority in the services will, however, be contend from the date of the passing of the training examination. The same policy decision, it is pointed out, has been reiterated in a subsequent circular of the Government dated 15-6-1988 where in the question regarding absorption of those untrained teachers, who were working in the school on the date of inspection and whose services in the school on the date of inspection and whose services were not recognised for one reason or the other, has been considered. In this view the appointment of the petitioners could not be denied on the ground that on the date of making of the report by the Special Board, the petitioners had not obtained the qualification, namely, that they had not passed the training course. Their right will certainly be not denied since they were within the sanctioned strength and had obtained the qualification after passing the training course even after the report submitted by the special committee the question, regarding absorption of those untrained teachers, who were working in the school on the date of inspection and whose services were not recognised for one reason or the other, had thus been considered by the government and a policy decision as contained in Annexure-9 was taken in this regard. 8. My attention has been drawn to a Full Bench decision of this court in the case of Ram Naresh Prasad Nirala V/s. State of Bihar and others, (1987 pljr 341 : 1987 BLJ 678 ) in which it was held :- ". . . . . . a teacher who was untrained on the date of the report of the special board under Sec.3 (3) of the Bihar Non-Government secondary School (Taking over the Management and Control) Act, 1981, he cannot claim to be considered for absorption in Government service on the ground of having subsequently acquired the requisite qualifications. It was further held that crucial point of time for consideration of eligibility, qualification and suitability of teachers for absorption is the date of the report of the Special board, and there is no vested right in an unqualified teacher to have his case re-examined on attaining the requisite qualification. It was further held that crucial point of time for consideration of eligibility, qualification and suitability of teachers for absorption is the date of the report of the Special board, and there is no vested right in an unqualified teacher to have his case re-examined on attaining the requisite qualification. " It appears that a special leave was preferred to the Supreme Court against the said decision. The appeal was disposed of by the Supreme Court with the directions that in the facts and circumstances of that case, the respondents shall take the appellant into employment and with this observation the appeal was disposed of. 9 There is no dispute with the aforesaid proposition laid down by the full Bench of this Court in the aforesaid Case, but the situation becomes different, if one consider the case in the light of the Government policy in the circular contained in Annexure-9 dated 21st December, 1982, Apparently, the said policy decision of the Government contained in Annexure-9 was neither referred to nor the attention of the Full Bench was drawn. 10. In the present case, the facts are not disputed, that the petitioners were working in the said school having acquired the requisite qualification. After the submission of the report by the Special Board, they passed the teachers training examination although they were not given the training course before the actual take over. From the order of this Court dated 6-9-1982 it appears that while this application was admitted for hearing the petitioners were directed to be retrained in the services as teachers in the school and as such they have continued and are getting salary as Assistant teacher in the said school till today. 11. Considering the facts enumerated above, in regard to the exclusion of the names of the petitioners from Annexure-4, respondent No.2 is directed to include the name of the petitioners in the list of teachers of the school like other respondents i e. respondents 6 to and who have been included in Annexure-4. It is made clear that respondent Nos.6 to 8 are oat to be disturbed and their position shall remain unaffected by this order. 12. In the result, this application is allowed but there will be no order as to costs. Writ application allowed.