JUDGMENT G.C. Bharuka, J. The present writ application has been filed by the petitioner for directing the respondents to recognise the service of the petitioner an assistant teacher in Sardar Ballabh bhai patel High School, Chota Govindpur, in the district of Singhbhum (hereinafter to be referred to as the school) and to give him all consequential benefits like that of salary etc. 2. The facts as set out by the petitioner in the writ application may briefly be stated first. The School was established in the year 1971 as 8 Middle School. Subsequently pursuant to the permission dated 27.12.1983 granted by the Committee constituted by the Government for this purpose, the school was given permission for establishing itself as a high school. The petitioner, who was having qualification of B.Sc had been appointed as an assistant teacher in the school with effect from 27.8.1980 by the Managing Committee of the school. 3. Pursuant to a letter dated 2.8.82 of the Respondent Director, Secondary Education, a special Board was constituted to test the feasibility for grant of permanent recognition to the school, which submitted its report dated 7.12.1982 Thereafter the school was recognised and Simultaneously taken over on 26.12.1983. In the said report the name of the petitioner was shown at serial no. 11, It hag been stated In the said report that, as intimated, the petitioner bad gone for completing his B. Ed course. The petitioner has filed letter dated 8.6.1985 (Annexure 2) written by the District Education Officer to the Respondent-Director that the petitioner had passed his B. Ed. examination in 1984. Admittedly, since at the time of taking over the petitioner was not a trained teacher, therefore, his services were not taken over by the state Government. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the State Government, the petitioner filed a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 2854 of 1985, which was disposed of on 16.7.1985 with a direction that the representation filed by the petitioner for taking over of his services should be disposed of by the Respondent Director, Secondary- Education, after taking Into consideration all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. Pursuant to the said direction, the learned Director, alter taking into consideration all the material facts, rejected the claim of the petitioner by his order dated 8.4.1987 (Annexure 4). 5. Pursuant to the said direction, the learned Director, alter taking into consideration all the material facts, rejected the claim of the petitioner by his order dated 8.4.1987 (Annexure 4). 5. It may be relevant to state here that two more teachers, namely, Jai Prakash Singh and Ramkeshwar Singh, who had been appointed in the school prior to the petitioner and who were similarly situated, also preferred similar claims. All the contesting claimants, namely, Sri Jai Prakash Singh and Ramkeshwar Singh as also the petitioner are B.Sc. in Mathematics and their respective dated of appointment in the school are 27.8.79, 1.7.78 and 27.8.80 and the learned director has held that recongnition was given to the services of only six teachers, out of whom one Ramdeo Prasad was science (mathematics). It was further observed that since said Ramdeo Prasad had been transferred to another school, therefore, a vacancy was created. Though creation of said vacancy was not sufficient enough for recognising the services of the claimants against the said post but on compassionate ground it was treated to be a vacancy for giving recognition to the services of one of the aforesaid three persons. The Director, accordingly, gave recognition to the services of Sri Ramkeshwar Singh being the seniormost amongst the three claimants referred to above. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent authorities has erred in not recognizing the services of the petitioner inasmuch as, according to the Government decision contained in letter no 852 dated 21.12.1982 issued by the Education Commissioner, if at the time of taking over, any untrained teacher was found to have been appointed within the sanctioned post and if he was under training then, his services were to be recognised provisionally and during the period of such training till the publication of the result, he was to be granted Rs.500/- as stipend per month and, in case, he fails in the said training course then his services will be deemed to be automatically terminad. Therefore, as submitted, in view of the Government decision it was incumbent upon the respondents to treat the petitioner as in continuous service from the date he his completed his B. Ed. course and earlier to that during the period of training be was entitled to a stipend at the rate of Rs.500/- per month. Therefore, as submitted, in view of the Government decision it was incumbent upon the respondents to treat the petitioner as in continuous service from the date he his completed his B. Ed. course and earlier to that during the period of training be was entitled to a stipend at the rate of Rs.500/- per month. In support of his submission, learnened counsel has placed reliance on a Single Judge Judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Shakuntala Devi and others Vs. State of Bijar and others, reported in BBCJ 714, wherein under similar facts as appearing in this case, it has been held since the petitioner in this case had acquired the requisite qualification of training subsequent to the date of take over of the school, in view of the aforesaid Government decision her service have to be recognized. 7. On the other band, learned counsel for the State has drawn my attention to clause (Dha) of the aforesaid Government letter and has submitted that the provisions contained in clause (Jha), which has been relied upon by the learned Single Judge has no application in the case of untrained teachers of such schools, which have been recognised after 2.10.1980, which was the out off date for automatic taking over of all the recognized secondary schools on promulgation of the first ordinance, subject to certain exceptions According to him learned single Judge has erred in taking view contrary to the Full Bench decision in the case of Ram Naresh Prasad Nirala Vs. State of Bihar and others, reported in 1987 PLJR, 341 and, therefore, the case of Smt. Shakuntala Devi (Supra) is liable to be over ruled 8. The Act was preceded by various ordinances containing identical provisions the first in the series being ordinance no 146 of 1980 published in the Bihar Gazette dated 11th August, 1980. A reading of Section 3(1) read with the definition of Non government secondary Schools under section 2(a) of the Act shows that control and management of all such schools which have been recognised by the Bihar secondary Education Board till 2nd October, 1980, subject to certain exceptions, will be deemed to have been taken over by the Government with effect from the said out off date. 9. 9. For the take over of management and control of an such schools which were not recognised till the cut off date, provision was made under section 3(3) for taking over of the management and control of such schools in the following terms : "3(3) The State Government may by notification in the official Gazette take over the management and control, of such schools and on such terms and conditions as the Government may deem proper, which have already received permission of establishment from the Bihar Secondary Education Board or of such schools imparting secondary education which have applied for permission of establishment to the said Board immediately before the date of promulgation or this Ordinance and the utility of such school is proved in the eye of the Government and which fulfil within three years of the promulgation of the ordinance the conditions laid down by the State Government with regard to land building, furniture, equipments and enrolment. The qualification and suitability of teachers working against nine posts of the school, one clerk and two Orderlies of such school before the promulgation of this Ordinance, shall be examined by a committee constituted by the State Government for the purpose and if found suitable for appointment in Government service they shall be appointed to the Government service along with taking over the management and control of the school." Section 4 of the Act provides for consequences of taking over of management and control and sub-section (2) thereof reads as under : “4(2) The services of every headmaster, teacher or other employees of the school taken over by the State government shall be deemed to have been transferred to the State Government, with effect from the date of taking over of the school and became employees of the State Government with such designation as the State government may determine.” 10. In the case of Ram Naresh Prasad (supra), resolving a dispute as to whether a teacher or a school, which was taken over under section 3 (3) of the Act, though untrained at the time of such taking over, but bad subsequently enhanced his qualification by acquiring the requisite qualification, has any right of recognition of his services in the taken over school or no, after addressing itself to all the relevant provisions, the Full Bench has held (at para 11) : "To conclude on this aspect, it is held that a teacher, who was untrained on the date of the report of the Special Board under section 3(3) of the Act aforesaid can not claim to be considered for absorption in Government service on the ground of having subsequently acquired the requisite qualification." In an earlier decision a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Ballabh Pradad Singh Vs. State of Bihar reported in 1986 PLJR, 373 has held that, sub-section (3) of Section 3 stands as a class by itself with regard to unrecognised schools which is distinct from classes of schools referred to in sub sections (1) and (2) thereof. Under second paragraph of section 3(3) the existing teachers have to fulfil all the requirements of the said provision as elaborated by the Government in its notification no.129 dated 30th November, 1981, prescribing qualification. It was further held that, “Section 4(2) in its application to section 3 (3) inevitably presupposes a strict compliance with the provisions of its second paragraph and the statutory instructions contained in notification no. 129 dated 30th November, 1981, unless the pre-conditions therein are satisfied, plainly, enough, section 4(2) can hardly come into play.” 11. What was read as implicit under the scheme of the Act has been made explicit by the legislature by making retrospective amendment with effect form 2nd October, 1980, in sections 3 and 4 as is evident from the Bihar non government secondary schools (Taking over of Management and Control) (Amendment) Ordinance, 1991, which has been subsequently repromulgated. Pursuant to this amendment, section 4 (2) stands deleted and provisions thereof have been placed as clause (b) to section 3 (1). Pursuant to this amendment, section 4 (2) stands deleted and provisions thereof have been placed as clause (b) to section 3 (1). The Sub-section (3) has been substituted by new provisions in the following terms : “(3) (1) The State Government may, by notification, in the official gazette, take over the management and control of such schools as have received permission or establishment from the erstwhile Bihar Secondary School Board or which have applied for permission of establishment to the said Board with requisite fee prior to 11th August,1980, and the utility of such schools is proved in the eyes of the Government and which fulfil the condition laid down by the State Government with regard to land, building, furniture, equipment and enrolment on such terms and conditions as the State Government may deem proper. (2) The following conditions shall govern the taking over of management and control of such schools : “(a) The State Government shall determine the number of schools of which the management and control are to be taken over in a particular year. (b) Out of the nine posts of teachers in a school taken over by the State Government, one post shall be earmarked for the headmaster. (c) It shall not be obligatory for the State Government to take over the services of the Headmaster, teachers and non teaching staff of the taken over school appointed by the managing committee of the said school. (d) The Headmaster shall be appointed by the State Government or by an officer authorised by the State Government under the rules and proceedure laid down for this purpose, (e) The services of such teachers who hold requisite qualification for the post as laid down by the State Government may be taken over by the State Government on the recommendation of the Bihar School Service Board, (f) Services of one clerk and two peons of a school taken over by the State Government, may be taken over; provided they hold requisite qualification and fitness for the post as laid down by the State Government, and (g) The teacher/non-teaching staff of the taken over school, whose services are taken over by the State Government under clauses (e) and (f) shall become Government servant" 12. Therefore, in view of the Full Bench decision in the case of Ram Naresh prasad Nirala (supra) and the provisions as stands substituted by the retrospective amendment the petitioner can not claim that like the teachers of the schools taken over on 2.10.1980 the petitioner has also a vested right of recognition or his services even if he was untrained on the date of taking over of his school. 13. Now coming to the last part of submission based on above referred letter of the Education Commissioner dated 21st December 1982, it is better to quote the relevant paragraphs of the said letter ¼K½ vf/kx`fgr fd;s tkus okys fo|ky;ks es jkT; ljdkj vFkok fo’o fo|ky;ks }kjk ekU;rk izkIr izf’kf{kr egkfo|ky;ks esa izf’k{k.k/khu f’k{kdksa dh fu;qfDr] ;fn og Lohd`r in ds vUnj gks rks dh ekU;rk vkSicaf/ke :i ls nh tk;A izf’k{k.k ijh{kk esa vuqrh.kZ gksus ij ,sls f’k{kdksa dks lsok Lor% lekIr le>h tk;sxsA izf’k{k.k dk ifj{kkQy fudyus rd mUgs dsoy 500@& :Œ ekfld o`frdk ns; gksxhA ojh;rk gsrq mudh lsok dh x.kuk muds izf’kf{kr gksus dh frfFk ls dh tk,xhA ¼<½ 2-10-80 ds ckn ls izLohd`r gksus okys fdlh ek/;fed fo|ky; esa izkP; f’k{kdksa dks NksM+dj vizf’kf{kr f’k{kdksa dh lsok dh ekU;rk xq.kork rFkk ,d c<+h la[;k esa izf’kf{kr csjktxkjh dh leL;k dks ns[krs gq, ugha nh tk;xhA fdUrq dU;k fo?kky;ksa esa izf’kf{kr efgyk f’k{kdksa dh vuqiyo/krk dh fLFkfr esa] vizf’kf{kr efgyk f’kf{kdk dh fu;qfDr fo|ky; lsokcksMZ dh vuq’kalk ij djus dk vf/kdkj funs’kd ekŒ f’kŒ dks gksxkA ,sls vizf’kf{kr f’k{kdksa ds fy, fofgr osrueku ns; gksxkA ojh;rk gsrq mudh lsok dh x.kuk muds izf’kf{kr dh frfFk ls dh tk;xhA 14. On a plain reading of the aforesaid two paragraphs it clearly appeares that the provisions for provisional recognition of the service of untrained teachers, who were under training on the date of taking over and payment of a stipend of Rs.500/- per months was applicable only in relation to such schools which were recognized and had been taken over on the cut off date i.e. 2.10.1980. But the said provisions were not applicable to the schools which have been granted recognition after 2.10.1980 and have been taken over under section 3(3) of the Act Para (Gha) clearly stipulates that the services of untrained teachers of the schools recognized after 2.10.1980 can not be recognized except in relation to teachers in ancient subjects. But the said provisions were not applicable to the schools which have been granted recognition after 2.10.1980 and have been taken over under section 3(3) of the Act Para (Gha) clearly stipulates that the services of untrained teachers of the schools recognized after 2.10.1980 can not be recognized except in relation to teachers in ancient subjects. In the case of Smt. Shakuntala Devi case (supra) as is evident from the judgment, his lordships attention was not drawn to this para of the afore slid letter, which was the only relevant para even on the facts of the case. 15. In view of the discussions made above, in my opinion, the law as laid down in Smt. Shakuntala Devi's case (supra) is not a good law and, accordingly, the same is over ruled. 16. For the above reasons, in my opinion there is no merit in this writ application and it is, accordingly, dismissed but without any order as to costs. I agree. Application dismissed.