Judgment S. N. Jha, J. 1. In this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India the petitioner has sought quashing of the order as contained in the letter dated 21-11-1985, whereby the claim of the petitioner for recognition as the founder Headmaster, as also his alternative claim for promotion to the post of Headmaster of the school in question has been rejected. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the notification of the State Government dated 25-11-1985 in so far as it relates to the posting of respondent No.5, Baleshwar Prasad Pandey, as the Headmaster in the school. True copies of the aforesaid letter dated 21-11-1985 and the notification dated 25-11-1985 are marked Annexures 5 and 6 to the writ petition. 2. The facts giving rise to the writ petition are not in dispute. The school in question, namely, Gandak High School, Tarwara, in the district of Siwan (hereinafter referred to as the School) was established in January, 1971. The permission for its establishment and thereafter, recognition was granted respectively on 16-2-1974 and 11-4-1978 by the then Bihar secondary Education Board under the provisions of the Bihar Secondary education Board Ordinance (later, Act 25 of 1976 ). The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant teacher in the school on 20-1-1973. He is said to have been later promoted to the post of Headmaster under the resolution of the then Managing Committee dated 7-1-1978. According to the petitioner, although he had been functioning as the Headmaster on the date of recognition, he was described as Incharare Headmaster in the order of recognition dated 11-4-1978, a copy whereof is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. According to the petitioner further, while the matter regarding petitioners approval as the Headmaster of the School was pending many persons, one after another, attempted to be posted in the school but none of the orders could be implemented. The last person to make such attempt was one Habib ansari, who was rested as the Headmaster of the said school by an order dated 7-6-1980. The said order was challenged by the petitioner in C. W. J. C. No.2674 of 1980. The last person to make such attempt was one Habib ansari, who was rested as the Headmaster of the said school by an order dated 7-6-1980. The said order was challenged by the petitioner in C. W. J. C. No.2674 of 1980. During pendency of the said writ petition Habib ansari was posted elsewhere and in that view of the matter the writ petition was disposed of on 17-4-1985 with a direction to the Director, Secondary education, to consider the case of the petitioner regarding his appointment as the Headmaster of the said school in the light of the Government circular no.510 dated 20-11-1981. Thereafter, the petitioners case was considered and by the impugned order his claim has been rejected in the manner stated above. 3. Although, as stated above, this court had directed the consideration of the case of the petitioner in the light of the Government circular No.510 dated 20-11-1981, the petitioner appears to have canvassed his Case for his recognition as the founder Headmaster and, alternatively, for his promotion as Headmaster. At this stage, it may be mentioned that by the aforesaid circular No.510 dated 20-11-1981 the State Government had laid down the procedure including the qualifications etc. for appointment by promotion in such schools where vacancy on the post of Headmaster had occurred prior to 2-10-1980 treating the school as a unit. By circular No.511 of even date the State Government made provisions for appointment of such persons, who were working as founder Headmaster till 2-10-1980 subject to their fulfilling certain conditions and qualifications as mentioned therein. True copies of the aforesaid two circulars have been brought on record of this case marked as Annexures 8 and 8/1-A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the official respondents, stating, inter alia, that at the time of recognition of the school in 1978 the petitioner did not possess the minimum requisite teaching experience of ten years as required under the Government circular No.2305 dated 25-7-1977, which was then in vague and, therefore, his services were not approved as the Headmaster at the time of recognition. As regards the claim for recognition, as founder Headmaster in terms of circular No.511, it is again stated that the petitioner does not possess the requisite qualification. 4. In this Court Mr. As regards the claim for recognition, as founder Headmaster in terms of circular No.511, it is again stated that the petitioner does not possess the requisite qualification. 4. In this Court Mr. Suraj Narain Yadav has submitted that the case of the petitioner is covered by both circular Nos.510 and 511 and, therefore, in either case he should have been either recognised as the founder Headmaster or promoted as the Headmaster. He has pointed out with reference to the notification dated 6-7-1983 of the Education Department that in spite of coming into force of the 1983 Rules in respect of the service conditions of the teachers of the taken over secondary schools, pending cases relating to promotion on the post of Headmaster in such schools where the vacancies had occurred prior to 2-10-1980, has to be decided according to the aforesaid circular No.510. In order to appreciate the dispute, it would be appropriate to extract the relevant portion of both circular Nos.510 and 511 dated 20-11-1981. The relevant part of circular No.510 reads as follows : -A bare perusal of the aforesaid two circulars would show that for the purpose of entitlement for recognition either as founder Headmaster or for appointment by promotion treating the school as one unit, it is necessary, inter alia, that the person concerned must have requisite teaching experience of 1 years and ten years respectively of a recognised school. As has been noticed above, the school was recognised only on 11-4-1978. Clearly, therefore, even if the petitioners argument that tenching experience should be counted from the date on which permission to establish was granted by the board (i. e.16-2-1974 in the instant case), be assumed to be correct, on the date of recognition he did not possess the requisite teaching experience. The argument of Mr. Suraj Narain Yadav, however, was that the cut off date for the purpose of claim of the teaching experience is the date when the case of the person either for recognition as founder Headmaster or for his promotion as Headmaster, treating the school as a Unit, is being considered. It is this aspect of the dispute, which really arises for consideration in this case. 5. It is this aspect of the dispute, which really arises for consideration in this case. 5. Adverting again to the circular No.511, so far as the claim for recognition as founder Headmaster is concerned, a bare perusal of Clause (Ga) of its Paragraph 2 would show that 7 years teaching experience after graduation has to be calculated as on the date of recognition. The minimum qualifications for the founder Headmaster as prescribed in Paragraph 2 of the said circular are that the person concerned must be a graduate from any recognised University ; must possess the necessary training as mentioned therein and must also possess 7 years teaching experience of a recognised secondary school (including the school in question) after graduation as on the date of recognition of the school. Therefore, so far as the claim for recognition as founder Headmaster is concerned, in my opinion, on plain and unambiguous language of the relevant circular, there can be no doubt that the person concerned for the purpose of his recognition as founder Headmaster, besides other qualifications, must have 7 years teaching experience of a recognised school to his credit as on the date of recognition of the school in question. 6. So far as the question of appointment by promotion in terms of circular No.510 is concerned, Paragraph 2 thereof only prescribes, so far as teaching experience part is concerned, that the person concerned must have 10 years teaching experience (7 years in the case of scheduled tribes, scheduled castes and women candidates ). It is ttue that unlike circular No.511, there is no specific mention as to on which date this 10 years teaching experience is to be calculated But having regard to the fact that the said circular contemplates making appointment on the post of Headmaster by promotion from amongst the eligible Assistant teachers of the school in question, treating the school as a unit in cases where the vacancy had occurred prior to 2-10-1980, it would be clear that the cut off date for the purpose of calculating the teaching experience has to be 2-10-1980 and no other date. A bare perusal of the first part of the said circular, which has been extracted above, would show that in respect of vacancies on the post of headmaster of taken over High Schools two categories have been carved out. A bare perusal of the first part of the said circular, which has been extracted above, would show that in respect of vacancies on the post of headmaster of taken over High Schools two categories have been carved out. In the first category are such schools in which the post of Headmaster fell vacant before 2-10-1980 and in the second category are such schools where the posts fell vacant on or after 2-10-1980 (sic ). In cases falling in the first category, the schools were to be treated as separate unit for the purpose of filling up the post of Headmaster, the idea being that the status quo ante prevailing prior to 2-10-1980 was to be maintained. The Bihar non-Government Secondary Schools (Taking Over of Management and control) Ordinance, 1980 came into force with effect from 2-10-1980 and, therefore, it was provided that if the vacancy bad occured prior to that date, such vacancy must be filled up by giving promotion to the Assistant teacher possessing the prescribed qualifications for such appointments as before. If the argument of Mr. Suraj Narain Yadav that qualification, namely, the teaching experience should be calculated on the date of consideration of the case of the person concerned, in the instant case on 21-11-1985 when the impugned order was passed, is accepted to be correct, it would lead to anomalies and in some cases even to absurdity. In order to test this argument, let us take a case in which such a consideration takes place say, in 1991 or in 1995. If the argument of Mr. Yadav be correct that teaching experience of 10 years has to be calculated with reference to the year 1991 or 1995, it may mean that even such persons, who were not even born in the service of the school in question as Assistant teacher as on 2-10-1980, would become eligible after having completed 10 years teaching experience on that date. Yadav be correct that teaching experience of 10 years has to be calculated with reference to the year 1991 or 1995, it may mean that even such persons, who were not even born in the service of the school in question as Assistant teacher as on 2-10-1980, would become eligible after having completed 10 years teaching experience on that date. As I have indicated above, the underlying idea behind carving out two distinct classes and providing two different modes for making appointment on the vacant posts of Headmaster in the aforesaid two classes was to give an opportunity of consideration i. e. a chance of promotion to only such of the eligible assistant teachers of the school in question, who on account of their possessing the requisite prescribed qualifications, could have been considered for promotion and could be promoted as Headmaster, had the aforesaid Ordinance not come into force. Therefore, the consideration, in my opinion, of the case of the person concerned for promotion has to be with reference to the state of affairs as existing on 2-10-1980 and, therefore, it is with reference to that very date that the teaching experience also has to be counted. 7. In the instant case, as has been noticed above, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant teacher by the then Managing Committee on 20-1-1973. Therefore, even If the teaching experience is counted commencing from 16-2-1974 when the permission to establish the school was granted by the Board, as contended by Mr. Yadav, it would follow that the petitioner completed 7 years teaching experience only in February, 1981, and was, therefore, not entitled for his recognition as founder Headmaster since as noticed above, the period of 7 years has to reckoned as on the date of recognition. Similarly, for the purpose of his promotion as Headmaster in terms of circular No.510 it has to be held that as on 2-10-1980 he had hardly put in six years teaching, even if the period is assumed to commence from 16-2-1974 and, thertfore, he did not possess the requisite ten years teaching experience as on 2-10-1980. It would accordingly, follow that he was not eligible for consideration for appointment by promotion as Headmaster. It would not be out of place to mention here that when I confronted Mr. It would accordingly, follow that he was not eligible for consideration for appointment by promotion as Headmaster. It would not be out of place to mention here that when I confronted Mr. Yadav with a hypothetical situation in which none of the assistant teachers working in a particular school, although the vacancy on the post of Headmaster had fallen vacant prior to 2-10-1980, was eligible for promotion to the said post, he conceded that in such a situation a person has to be brought from outside. Before I conclude, I may also mention that an intervention application has been filed on behalf of one Gautam Prasad claiming to be senior to the petitioner and, in fact, the seniormost teacher in the school. However, I am not called upon to consider the merits of the claim of the aforesaid intervenor in this writ application. . 8. Mr. Yadav challenged the impugned order (Annexure-5) also on the ground that the power of making appointment on the post of Headmaster vests in the State Government on the basis of the recommendation of the school Service Board, in terms of circular No.330 and, therefore, the director, Secondary Education, had no authority to reject the claim of the petitioner This submission, in my view, too has no force. Paragraph 6 of the aforesaid circular provides that the Director (Secondary Education) has to forward the names of three teachers according to seniority, along with their service records to the said Board for the purpose of promotion. In my opinion, under Paragraph 6, the cases of only such teachers are required to be sent to the Board, who fulfil the requisite eligibility and the qualifications. Therefore, in a case like the present one, where the person concerned does not possess the requisite qualification, it is open to the Director not to forward the name of that person to the Board. Therefore, if the claim of the petitioner has been finally rejected by the Director without referring the same to the Board, no infirmity can be attributed. 9. In my considered view, therefore, the petitioner was not eligible either for his recognition as the founder Headmaster or for his promotion as the Headmaster in terms of the Government circular Nos.51 land 510 dated 20-11-1981 respectively and, therefore, the impugned order (Annexure-5)does not suffer from any infirmity. 9. In my considered view, therefore, the petitioner was not eligible either for his recognition as the founder Headmaster or for his promotion as the Headmaster in terms of the Government circular Nos.51 land 510 dated 20-11-1981 respectively and, therefore, the impugned order (Annexure-5)does not suffer from any infirmity. Consequently, I do not also see any illegality in the or Jer as contained in Annexure-6 by which respondent no.5 is being brought to the school in question. 10. In the result, I find no merit in this application, which is accordingly dismissed, but without any order as to costs. Application dismissed.