Judgment S. Ali Ahmad & Ram Nandan Prasad, JJ. The proposal to take over Shankar Madhya Vidyalaya Murtuzi Ganj Patna City was turned down by the order dated 28.8.1989 (annexure 4) passed by respondent no. 2 the Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar on the ground that the school in question was unaided school and that it did not have its own building or land. The prayer is to quash the same on the ground that it is not necessary for taking over of schools that the same should be aided one. It is said that even unaided schools can be taken over under section 3 (4) of the Bihar Non-Government Elementary schools (Taking over of Control) Act, 1976. It is also said that circular no. 1167 dated 2.5.1980 which says that the schools which can between over must possess its own building or land, applies only to those schools which rural situated in rural areas. It is said that the school in question's located within the limits of Patna Municipal Corporation and as such the Director, Primary Education erred in thinking that the school must have its own land or building. 2. In the case of Tulsi Prasad and others v. The State of Bihar and others (C.W.J.C. 7136 of 1989) disposed of on 18.1.1990 we have held that under sub-section (4) of section 3 of the Act unaided schools also can be taken over. It is, therefore manifest that the Director erred in refusing to take over the school on the ground that it is unaided. It is also not disputed by learned Standing Counsel No. 4 that it is not necessary for schools to be taken over to have its own land or building if they are located within urban area. In substance he concedes that the case is fully covered by the decision in C.W.J.C. 7136 of 1989. But learned counsel says that the school cannot be taken over since the recommendation made by the District Committee for its taking over was illegal. In paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that the necessary papers mentioned in annexure 2 were not sent to the Directorate and that the case was not properly examined. Mr. But learned counsel says that the school cannot be taken over since the recommendation made by the District Committee for its taking over was illegal. In paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that the necessary papers mentioned in annexure 2 were not sent to the Directorate and that the case was not properly examined. Mr. A.K. Mishra appearing on behalf of the petitioners strongly refuted this stand of the learned Standing Counsel and say s that the decision was taken by the District Committee in the year 1982 and all relevant papers were forwarded. He says that the members of the District Committee were responsible officers and their recommendation should not be lightly treated. We do not wish to enter into this controversy. A perusal of annexure 4 clearly shows that the Director passed the order refusing to take over the school on two grounds only namely the unaided character of the school and the absence of land or building of the school. We have indicated above that on these two conditions the proposal of taking over of the schools could not be rejected. It is well settled that grounds other than those mentioned in the order cannot be brought in ordinarily to protect the order. We therefore, quash annexure 4 and direct the respondent no. 2 to consider the matter afresh in accordance with law. 3. The application is thus allowed.