JUDGMENT Radha Mhan Prasad, J. In the present writ application the petitioner prays for quashing of the order of the Additional Commissioner Cum Special Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development, Government of Bihar, as contained in Memo No. 437 dated 29th July, 1991, at Annexure 7 to the writ petition, whereby and where under the order of the Chairman of the Bihar Secondary Education Board, Patna dated 31st December, 1991. As contained in Memo No. 249048, at Annexure 6 to the writ petition, according approval of the petitioner's appointment as Headmaster in Kisan High School, Tara Bariarpu (Begusarai) (hereinafter referred to as 'the School') with effect from the date of recognition of the school, has been cancelled and, further, respondent no. 6 has been declared as Headmaster of the School. 2. In short, the facts of the case are that in the year 1970 the School was established and respondent no. 6 was appointed as Headmaster by the Secretary, of the School In July, 1973, the Board of Secondary Education gave the permission for establishment of the School. The case of the petitioner is that since respondent no. 6 was not possessing the minimum eligibility for the post of Headmaster, an advertisement was issued for fuelling up the post of Headmaster. According to him, the managing committee after following due procedure, vide resolution dated 15.7.1978, appointed him as Headmaster of the School. The petitioner joined in the School on 17.11.1978. However, it appear that before the said appointment a special Board with the District Education Officer, Begusarai and one Shatrughna Prasad Shingh as its Member was constituted on 27.4.1978 for consideration of grant of permanent recognition to the School According to the respondent no. 6, the School was inspected on 17.8.1978 by the Special Board which submitted its report on 8.11.1978. In the said report respondent no. 6 shown as the Headmaster of the school. However later a second Special Board was reconstituted of which Ram Parishan Sahu and Shtrughna Prasad Singh were Members; 3. It is Stated by the petitioner that before joining the School he was working in another school. It appears that the newly constituted Special Boat submitted a report on 12.12.1978 which, according to respondent, no. 6, was exparte and not even signed by the second Member. It is Stated by the petitioner that before joining the School he was working in another school. It appears that the newly constituted Special Boat submitted a report on 12.12.1978 which, according to respondent, no. 6, was exparte and not even signed by the second Member. Thereafter there was some dispute between the parties which led to closure of the School and finally the Collector, vide letter No. 98 dated 20.12.1978 directed for reopening of the School According to the petitioner, an enquiry was interested to the Assistant. Secretary with respect to the appointment of the petitioner as well as respondent no. 6 as also in regard to their requisite qualifications. Later a report was submitted to the Chairman on 2.3.1979 declaring the petitioner as having been validly appointed with the requisite qualification and, further, holding that respondent no. 6 did not have the minimum requisite qualification. 4. It is Stated that in the aforementioned order granting recognition to the School, respondent no. 6 was shown as Assistant Teacher. It is claimed by respondent no. 6 that in July, 1979 he was again made incharge Headmaster of the School As It appears that the dispute regarding the respective claims of the petitioner and respondent no. 6 continued, the Board on. 9.8.1979 directed the Regional Deputy Director of Education to verify and report with regard to the appointment and experience. Later on 31.12.1979 the Board granted recognition to the service of the petitioner as Headmaster of the School from the date of its recognition, as already Stated above, against which respondent no. 6 filed a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 1451 of 1980 in this Court which was disposed of by an order dated 22.2.1986 permitting him to withdraw the same with a liberty to prefer an appeal as provided under the Act. Respondent no. 6 thereafter filed an appeal in which after hearing both the parties, the Additional Commissioner cum Special Secretary (respondent no. 2) passed the impugned order. 5. The questions which have been raised on behalf of the petitioner are (I) as to whether the Additional Commissioner Cum Special Secretary (respondent no. 2) could have recognised respondent no. Respondent no. 6 thereafter filed an appeal in which after hearing both the parties, the Additional Commissioner cum Special Secretary (respondent no. 2) passed the impugned order. 5. The questions which have been raised on behalf of the petitioner are (I) as to whether the Additional Commissioner Cum Special Secretary (respondent no. 2) could have recognised respondent no. 6 as Headmaster even though there was no appointment of him as Headmaster then existing and, further, that he did not possess the requisite qualification, (ii) as whether the Special Secretary was authorised to go into the propriety of reconstitution of the special Board and (iii) as to whether the petitioner was appointed in accordance with law. 6. According to Mr. Gnesh Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the Additional Commissioner has reversed the order of the Board on flimsy grounds and has accorded approval of respondent no. 6 as Headmaster notwithstanding the fact that he was not eligible for being appointed as Headmaster either on the date of his initial appointment by the Managing Committee or on the date of recognition of the School granted by the Board on 20th April, 1979. Learned counsel submitted that at the relevant time the requirement of law was that for appointment as Headmaster a person must be a trained graduate with five years teaching experience and/or untrained graduate with ten years' teaching experience. In this regard he placed reliance on Government Notification No 5172 dated 7th September, 1995 of the Education Department the relevant prosion of which reeds as follows. "Only graduates who are trained and who possess five years' teaching experience, or untrained graduates of approved merit with ten years' teaching experience can be considered for appointment as Headmaster..... .....” Mr. Singh further submitted that the said Government notification acquired the status of statutory rule under section (3) of the Bihar High Schools (Control and Regulation of Administration) Act. 1960. It was also submitted by the learned counsel that the School was granted permission to establish on 29.7.1973 and recognition on 20.4.1979. as already Stated above. Meanwhile, under the provisions of the aforesaid 1960 Act 1972 Rules came into force on 18th September, 1972. Rule 4(11) pressured the minimum eligibility for the post of Headmaster as ten years' teaching experience with trained graduate as qualification. as already Stated above. Meanwhile, under the provisions of the aforesaid 1960 Act 1972 Rules came into force on 18th September, 1972. Rule 4(11) pressured the minimum eligibility for the post of Headmaster as ten years' teaching experience with trained graduate as qualification. Thus, according to him neither at the time of initial appointment nor at the time of grant of permission for establishment of the School nor at the time of recognition of the School respondent no. 6 possessed the minimum qualification for the post of Headmaster as he did not possess the required teaching experience. As against that it is claimed that the petitioner at the time of his appointment as Headmaster on 15.7.1978 by the managing committee of the School after due advertisement had more than ten tears' teaching experience in a recognised High School, namely, B.B.N High School, Rosera in the district of Samastipur. It is further claimed that the service of the petitioner was also duly recognised since the date of his appointment in the aforesaid School on 27.3.1968. Thus, according to him the impugned order is contrary to the mandate of the Rule. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 6 submitted that respondent no. 6 was never removed by the managing committee since his appointment in the year 1990. Further, it was submitted by learned counsel that the rule relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no application to the present case inasmuch as according to the learned counsel, the said Rule of 1955 was in regard to the appointment and service condition of teacher in non-Government High Schools whereas in the year 1970 when respondent no. 6 was appointed in the school by the managing committee, the School in question was, admittedly, not recognised. Thus, the said School had not acquired the status of a non Government High School until 20th April, 1979 when recognition had been granted to the School. It was also submitted that the qualification of a person is to be tested at the time of grant of recognition and not before that Further, it was submitted by the learned counsel for respondent no. 6 that the so-called appointment of the petitioner without even terminating/canceling the appointment of responding no. 6 was non est in the eye of law. 6 that the so-called appointment of the petitioner without even terminating/canceling the appointment of responding no. 6 was non est in the eye of law. He also submitted that the appointment of the petitioner was not made by the managing committee but only by the Secretary who had already resigned on 17.11.1978. As regards the constitution of the second Special Board it was submitted that the said section was mala fide inasmuch as there was no infirmity in the constitution of the earlier Board or the report submitted by it. Learned counsel also submitted that at any rate the claim of the petitioner that he was appointed by the managing committee, vide Resolution dated 15.7.1978, also cannot be sustained on the ground that after promulgation of the Bihar Secondary Education Board Ordinance, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as' 1974 Ordinance'), the managing committee had no power to appoint Headmaster in a School besides that even the procedure prescribed therein was also not followed. 8. I do not find any substance in the last submission of the learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 6. The claim of the petitioner regarding his appointment on 15.7.1978 by the managing committee of the School cannot be rejected on the ground that since after the promulgation of 1974 Ordinance, the managing committee had no power to appoint Headmaster in the School or that the appointment can be held to be bad if the procedure prescribed therein is not followed. Part VI of 1974 Ordinance deals with the appointment and other service condition of the Teachers and Headmaster in a recognised Secondary School. It is admitted position that the School got its recognition on 20th April, 1979, i.e. after the appointment of the petitioner, as flamed by him. Thus, in my opinion, the provision of 1974 Ordinance in this regard has no application. However, it is not the case of the petitioner that his appointment was made after terminating/canceling the appointment of respondent no 6 which was made in the year 1970. Besides this, nothing has been brought to my notice to reject the contention of respondent no. 6 that the appointment was not made by the managing committee but only by the Secretary. Thus, it is difficult to sustain the appointment of the petitioner. 9. In so far as the contention advanced on behalf on the petitioner that respondent no. Besides this, nothing has been brought to my notice to reject the contention of respondent no. 6 that the appointment was not made by the managing committee but only by the Secretary. Thus, it is difficult to sustain the appointment of the petitioner. 9. In so far as the contention advanced on behalf on the petitioner that respondent no. 6 was not eligible for the post of Headmaster as he did not possess the required teaching experience neither at the time of initial appointment or at the time of grant of permission for establishment of the School by the Board or at the time of grant of recognition to the School by the Board, I do not find any substance in the same. It has not been brought to my notice that there was any statutory rule laying down the requisite qualification for appointment as Headmaster in a School which had not been recognised by the Board. It is admitted fact that the School got its recognition on 20th April 1979 and the initial appointment of respondent no. 6 was made son dunes in the year 1970, i.e. , much prior to the grant of recognition, 10. It is true that according to rule 11 of 1972 rules, as contained in Government Notification No. 2709 dated 18th September, 1972, the requirement is that Headmaster of a School must be at last graduate trained with ten years' experience in teaching administration or teaching experience in a School which respondent no 9 did not possess at the time of grant of recognition to the school on 20.4.1979. But, however, no rule has been brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the petitioner which disentitles a persons to be continued as Headmaster in a school, which got recognition after his appointment if he did not have the requisite qualification for that post. The provision contained in 1972 Rules only deals with the requisite qualification of a Teacher and a Headmaster in a High School, besides other service conditions of the members of the teaching as well as non-teaching staff of such schools. 11. Thus, in my opinion, there is no substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is contrary to the mandate of the rule. This answers the first and third questions formulated in paragraph 5 above. 11. Thus, in my opinion, there is no substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is contrary to the mandate of the rule. This answers the first and third questions formulated in paragraph 5 above. As regard the second question as to whether the Special Secretary was authorised to go into the propriety of the School, 1, in view of the above, do no consider any necessity to go into the same. The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed but without costs. Application dismissed