Order Heard the learned counsel for the parties and the appeal is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. 2. The appellants, who are said to be teachers of Adarsh Shiksha Niketan, Karbigahiya, Patna, filed C.W.J.C. No. 8692 of 1989 for a writ of mandamus directing the State government for quashing the order, as contained in the Annexure-6, passed by respondent no. 2 and for taking over of the school under the provisions of the Bihar Non-Government Elementary Schools (Taking Over of Control) Act, 1976 (hereinafter caned the Act). The writ petition was dismissed. The appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 3. It was submitted on behalf of the appellants that when the Committee envisaged under sub-section (4) of section 3 of the Act in the resolution passed in its meeting on 20th January, 1982, recommended for taking over the school, as contained in Annexure-6, under the Act, respondent no. 2 had no jurisdiction to sit in judgment over the same and refusing to take over the school. 4. Learned Standing Counsel No. 1 on behalf of the respondents submitted that respondent no. 2, in his order, as contained in Annexure 6, had gone to the question of viability of the school being taken over and on the basis of the facts he was of the opinion that the school should not be taken over. In view of this, it was submitted, the learned single Judge was correct in dismissing the writ petition. 5. In view of the submission made on behalf of the appellants, we are concerned in this case with section 3(4) of the Act. We are noticing the same :- "3. x x x (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: (i) Deputy Development Commissioner/Administrator, District Board, Chairman. (ii) District Superintendent of Education Secretary. (iii) District Education Officer. (iv) District Inspector of Schools. (v) Sub-divisional Education Officer of the concerned Subdivision, and (vi) Deputy Inspector of Schools concerned. (ii) District Superintendent of Education Secretary. (iii) District Education Officer. (iv) District Inspector of Schools. (v) Sub-divisional Education Officer of the concerned Subdivision, and (vi) Deputy Inspector of Schools concerned. (b) The State Government may, from time to time make changes in the personnel of the District Committees so constituted." Sub-Section (4) (a) provides that with regard to the taking over of the Elementary schools of the type, as mentioned in subsection (2), there shall be a District Committee in each District which shall examine the feasibility of taking over of such schools by the State Government. The persons who will be members of such Committee have been stated therein. 6. According to the appellants, the Committee envisaged in sub-section (4) of section 3 of the Act examined the feasibility of taking over of the school by its resolution, as contained in Annexure-3, and the State Government was bound to act on the same. 7. There is dispute whether the school in question is unaided or aided. In view of the order which we are going to pass in this appeal, we are not expressing any opinion on this. 8. We have already noticed that section 3(4) of the Act, inter alia, provides that the District Committee shall examine the feasibility of taking over aided schools by the State Government. The Committee, therefore, is required to take into consideration the relevant facts and record its reasons about the feasibility or otherwise of taking over of a school. 9. From perusal of Annexure-3 we find that only one line resolution was passed by the Committee. The proper course which the Director should have followed in this case was to send back the matter to the District Committee for reconsidering the case of taking over of the school in question by taking into consideration the relevant facts. We must make it clear that respondent no. 2 has no jurisdiction either to say 'yes' or 'no' with regard to the taking over of the Schools under the Act. 10. In view of this, we allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge and dispose of the writ application with a direction to respondent no. We must make it clear that respondent no. 2 has no jurisdiction either to say 'yes' or 'no' with regard to the taking over of the Schools under the Act. 10. In view of this, we allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge and dispose of the writ application with a direction to respondent no. 2 to refer back the matter of taking over of the school in question to the District Committee envisaged under section 3 (4) of the Act and the District Committee shall act in accordance with law, keeping in view the observations made above.