JUDGMENT S. B. Sinha & G. C. Bharuka, JJ. - The petitioners who are three in numbers have filed this writ application for issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing an order dated 9.7.1990 as contained in Annexure-12 to the writ application whereby their services had been approved since the date of publication of result of the diploma in teachers' teaching examination. 2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. 3. The petitioners were Assistant Teachers in Ram Parikshan Chandra Yuoti Uchcha Vidayalay, Belwarghat Vaishali. The said school was recognised on 19.4.1974, on which date there were only six trained teachers. Admittedly at that point of time, the petitioners were untrained one. It is also admitted that the services of the petitioners were not recognised. The petitioner's names were not sent to the Bihar Education Board. The petitioners filed a writ petition in this court being CWJC No. 1834 of 1979. The said writ petition was disposed of by a learned single Judge of this court by an order dated 3.7.1980 wherein it was directed : "The petitioners contend that they have already undergone the relevant training in the Magadh Teachers Training College, Gaya alleged to be affiliated with the Magadh University a fact, which is controverted by the learned Govt. pleader. In view of this controversy, learned counsel for both the parties agree that the petitioners should be afforded a fresh opportunity to undergo the requisite training as early as possible. The Govt. pleader says that the petitioners will be provided with ail facilities to take admission in a Govt. affiliated institution within a period of three months from today. It will be open to the petitioners to join such institution, complete their training and if they qualify at the examination then their services would be regularised. It goes without saying that if the petitioners qualify at the examination they will be entitled to their salary in accordance with the Government direction." 4. The contention of the petitioners is that they were sent for training in Govt. Teacher's Training College, Turki, Muzaffarpur on 6.7.1981 and they passed their short training courses in that year. 5. The petitioners have annexed certificates dated 27.8.1981 for the purpose of showing that they have passed the short training courses which are contained in Annexure-2 series to the writ application. 6. Teacher's Training College, Turki, Muzaffarpur on 6.7.1981 and they passed their short training courses in that year. 5. The petitioners have annexed certificates dated 27.8.1981 for the purpose of showing that they have passed the short training courses which are contained in Annexure-2 series to the writ application. 6. Admittedly thereafter the petitioners participated in the diploma teaching courses conducted by the Govt. Teachers Training College, Turki, Muzaffarpur and were allegedly relieved with effect from 1.3.1982. 7. The petitioners have contended that they had been working in that school since 1974 and as there are 9 sanctioned posts therein and there had only been 6 trained teachers and 3 untrained teachers, their services should have been recognised and consequently they should have been paid their due salary. 8. Admittedly, the petitioners obtained diplomas in the Teacher's Training Course in the year 1988 for which examinations were held in June, 1987. The petitioners have annexed photostat copies of their respective mark-sheets of the Bihar University which are contained in Annexure-9 series. The petitioners have therefore prayed for that the respondents should be directed to pay their salary from the very beginning. The petitioners in support of their contention have also relied upon a circular letter dated 15th June, 1988 which is contained in Annexure-10 to the writ application. 9. Admittedly, the petitioners were not qualified to be appointed as an Assistant Teacher of the schools in question on its being taken over in terms of the provisions of the Bihar Non-Government Elementary School (Taking over of Management and Control) Act, 1981. This aspect of the matter has also been fully covered by a full Bench of this court in Ram Ballabh Pd. Singh Vs. State of Bihar reported in 1986 PLJR 373 . 10. The petitioners, thus in our opinion, cannot claim any legal right nor can claim payment of salary in terms of the Judgment of this court as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application as in terms whereof the parties to the said writ application had agreed that they should be afforded fresh opportunity to undergo the requisite training at an early date. 11. The short training courses purported to have been undertaken by the petitioner was not the requisite training which would have entitled them to be absorbed in the State Services as Assistant Teachers. 12. 11. The short training courses purported to have been undertaken by the petitioner was not the requisite training which would have entitled them to be absorbed in the State Services as Assistant Teachers. 12. It is evident from the judgment of this court passed in C.W.J.C No. 1834 of 1979 (Annexure-1) itself that the State merely agreed to give all facilities to the petitioners for their admission in the Government affiliated Institution. 13. From the said judgment it is further evident that the petitioners became entitled to get salary in accordance with the Govt. direction only in the event they qualified at the said examination. Thus the question of the petitioners' having any right to obtain the salary till the time they passed the training examination does not and cannot arise. Even the equity is not in favour of the petitioners inasmuch• as, noticed hereinbefore, the petitioners themselves agreed to undergo such training and receive salary in accordance with the Govt. directions. 14. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has drawn out attention to Annexure-7 to the writ application. However, in our opinion, the same has no application in this case. 15. Our attention has further been drawn to a letter dated 21st December, 1982 which finds place at page 510 of the Compendium to Important Orders and Circulars on Bihar Secondary Education by J. P. Singh. In that circular it has inter alia been directed that in case a teacher is undergoing training and he comes within the purview of the sanctioned strength his services may be recognised on an ad hoc basis subject to the conditions that it he does not come successful therein, his appointment shall automatically be cancelled and till the result of the examination is published he shall be paid a stipend of Rs. 500 per month. It has further been stated therein that for the purpose of seniority his services would be considered from the date when he obtains a certificate of training. 16. In our opinion, the said circular letter dated 21st December, 1982 does not give to the aid of the petitioner as admittedly the petitioner had not been undergoing training on the date on which the school had been taken over. 17. 16. In our opinion, the said circular letter dated 21st December, 1982 does not give to the aid of the petitioner as admittedly the petitioner had not been undergoing training on the date on which the school had been taken over. 17. The petitioners, as noticed hereinbefore, have themselves relied upon a circular letter of the State of Bihar dated 15th June, 1988 which is contained in Annexure-10 to the writ application in terms whereof it was directed as follows : "we bache siksho ki sewa ki manyata parikshaphal prakashan ki tithi de jay basrate ki unhonane jis satra me prasikshan liya usi prishan satra ki ayojit pariksha me pratham bar he utrine prapt kar lie ha." 18. It is, thus clear that the petitioner's services had been recognised from the date of their passing their examination in terms of the aforementioned circular. 19. This aspect of the matter has also been considered recently by a division Bench of this court in Kamata Prasad and ors. vs. the State of Bihar in C.W.J.C. No. 7690 of 1992 disposed of on 24.9.1992 [ 1993 (1) PLJR 327 ] and this case is fully covered by the aforementioned judgment. 20. In the result, there is no merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed but in the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.