Judgment G. C. Bharuka, J. 1. The present writ application has been filed by petitioner for directing to the respondents to recognise the services of the petitioner as on 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 given 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 a 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. has been appointed as assistant teacher in the school with effect from 27-8-1980 by the managing Committee of the school. 3. Pursuant to a letter dated 2-8-1982 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, Jn the said report the name of the petitioner was shown at serial No. II. It has been seated in the said report that, as intimated, the petitioner had gone for completing his b. Sc. course. The petitioner has filed a letter dated 8-6-1985 (Annexure-2)written by the District Education Officer to the Respondent-Director that the petitioner had passed his B Sc. examination in 1984. Admittedly, since at the time of taking over, the petitioner was not a trained teacher, therefore, bis 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.3854 of 1985, which was disposed of on 16-7-1985 with a direction that the representation filed by the petitioner for taking over of bis 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, after 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, after 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 and also the petitioner are B. Sc. in Mathematics and their respective dates of appointment in the school are 27-8-1979, 1-7-1978 and 27-8-1980. The learned Director has held that recognition was given to the services of only six teachers, out of whom one Ramdeo Prasad was of 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 not 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 recognising 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 than, his service 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 sajd training course then his services will be deemed to be automatically terminated. Therefore, as submitted, in view of this Government decision it was incumbent upon the respondents to treat the petitioner as in continuous service from the date he has completed his B. Ed, course and earlier to that during the period of training he was entitled to a stipend at the rate of Rs, 500/- per month. Therefore, as submitted, in view of this Government decision it was incumbent upon the respondents to treat the petitioner as in continuous service from the date he has completed his B. Ed, course and earlier to that during the period of training he was entitled to a stipend at the rate of Rs, 500/- per month. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on a Single Judge judgment of this Court in in the case of Smt. Shakwtala Devi and others V/s. State of Bihar and others, reported in 1989 BBCJ 714 , wherein under similar facts as appearing in this ease, it has been held that 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 services have to be recognised. 7. On the other hand, 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 cut-off date for automatic taking over of all the recognised secondary schools on promulgation or the first Ordinance, subject to certain exceptions. According to him, learned Single Judge has erred in taking a view contrary to the Full Beach decision in the case of ram Naresh Prasad Nirala V/s. State of Bihar and others, reported in 1987 pur 341 (FB) and, therefore, the case of Smt. Shakuntala Devi (supra) is liable to be overruled. 8. The Act was preceded by various Ordinances containing identical provisions-the first in the series being Ordinance No.140 of 1980 published in the Bihar Gazette dated llth August, 1980. A reading of section 3 (1) read with the definition of Non-Government Secondary School under Sec.2 (a) of the Act shows that control and management of all such schools which have been recognised land by the Bihar Secondary education Board till 2nd October, 1980, subject to cartain exceptions, will be deemed to have been taken over by the Government with effect from the said cut-off date. 9. 9. For the take over of management and control of all 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 Governmnnt 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 importing 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 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 order lies 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 in the Government service along with taking over the management and control of the school. " Sec.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 Govenment with such designation as the State Government may determine. " 10. (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 Govenment with such designation as the State Government may determine. " 10. In the case of Ram Naresh Prasad (supra), resolving a dispute as teacher of a school, which was taken over under Sec.3 (3) of the Act, though untrained at the time of such taking over, but has subsequently enhanced his qualification by acquiring the requisite qualification, has any right of recognition of his services in the taken over school or not, 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 Prasad Singh V/s. State of Bihar, reported in 1986 PLJR 373 has held that,, sub-section (3) of Sec.3 stands as a class 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 Sec.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 Sec.3 (3) inevitably presupposes a strict compliance with the provisions of its second Paragraph and the statutory instruction contained in notification No.129, dated 30th November, 1981, unless the pre-conditions therein are satisfied, plainly enough, Sec.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 from 2nd October, 1980, in Sections 3 and 4 at is evident from the Bihar, Non-Government Secondary Schools (Taxing over of Management and Control) (Amendment) Ordinance, 1991, which has been subsequently repromulgated. " 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 from 2nd October, 1980, in Sections 3 and 4 at is evident from the Bihar, Non-Government Secondary Schools (Taxing over of Management and Control) (Amendment) Ordinance, 1991, which has been subsequently repromulgated. Pursuant to this amendment, Sec.4 (2)stands deleted and provisions thereof have been placed at 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 of 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 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 (be 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 authorissed by the State Government under the rules and procedure laid down for this purpose; (e) The services of such teachers who hold requisite qualifica-tion 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 Niralas case (supra) and the provisions as stands substituted by the retrospective amendment the petitioner can not claim that like the teachers at the schools taken over on 240-1980, the petitioner has also a vested right of recognition of his services even if he was untrained on the date of taking over of his schools. 13. Now coming to the last part of submission based on above referred letter of the Edueation Commissioner dated 21st December, 1982, it is better to quote the relevant paragraphs of the said letter 14. 13. Now coming to the last part of submission based on above referred letter of the Edueation Commissioner dated 21st December, 1982, it is better to quote the relevant paragraphs of the said letter 14. On a plain reading of the aforesaid two paragraphs it clearly appears that the provisions for provisional recognition of the services of untrained teachers, who were under training on the date of taking over and payment of a stipend of Rs.500/- per month was applicable only in relation to such schools which were recognised 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 Sec.3 (3) of the Act. Para (Dha)clearly stiuplates that the services of untrained teachers of the schools recognised after 2-10-1980 can not be recognised except in relation to teachers in ancient subject. 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 above said letter, which was the only relevant para even on the facts of that case. 15. In view of the discussions made above, in my opinion, the law as laid down in Smt. Shakuntala Devis case (supra) is not a good law and, accordingly, the same is overruled. 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. Petition dismissed.