JUDGMENT S.N. Jha, J. This will petition has been field for quashing the order as contained in letter of the Block Education Extension Officer, Dehri, pursuant to directions of the Director, primary Education, Bihar, dated June 17, 1977 and the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Patna Division, dated June 30, 1977, staying take over of the Sitaram Madhya Vidyalaya, Pakaria (hereinafter refereed to as 'the School'), and for direction to the respondents to take over the services of the petitioners, absorb them in the Government service and pay them salary and allowances with effect from October 1977. 2. The writ petition could be dismissed summarily on the ground of staleness of the claim. In deference to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, I propose to pass a short but reasoned order on merit. 3. The core of controversy is whether the School has been taken over by the State or not. It maybe Stated that according to the stand of respondents the School was never taken over by the Government nor the services of the Teachers were approved According to them, a primary School duly recognized by the Government from its very inception by the at Pakaria was running which was later upgraded w middle School. The same is running as a Government School. According to them, Sitaram Middle School i.e. the School in question is a separate School being run private management. Notwithstanding the aforesaid stand of the respondents, counsel for the petitioners made submission on merit stating that the School in question is one and the same and that there is no other School running in the radius of 3 kms. 4. The thrust of the argument is that the School was taken over with effect February 19,1977 when Annexure-3, a letter to the above effect was issued by the Regional Deputy Director, Education, Patna Division. According to the counsel, the School is an aided School and so far as aided Schools are concerned, no notification of taken over is required to be made. The report of the special Board accompanied by the voluntary handing over the control of the School amounts to take over. The decision of the learned Single Judge in Nand Keshwar Singh and ors. (1985 PLJR 608) does seem to support the above view. The report of the special Board accompanied by the voluntary handing over the control of the School amounts to take over. The decision of the learned Single Judge in Nand Keshwar Singh and ors. (1985 PLJR 608) does seem to support the above view. It is this as pet of the matter which I purpose to deal with in some details. 5. Section 2(a) of the Bihar Non Government Elementary School (Taking over of Control) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act') defines "Elementary Schools" to n can and include School of different grades up to class VII established and administered by District Board and Zila Parishad, Municipal Board and Patna Municipal Corporation Section 2 (2 defines "aided elementary School" to mean a private School administered by a Managing Committee which has been in receipt of Government grant prior to its being taken over by the State Government. “UN aided Elementary Schools" has been defined under Section 2 (d) to mean a private School recognised by the Government but which is not in receipt of any Government grant. 6. Section 3 which is the charging Section of the Act, any be quoted at this stage "3. Taking over of Non-Government Elementary school by state Government (1) Elementary Schools managed by the managed by the District Board. Zila Parishad, the Municipal Board, and the Patna Municipal Corporation and those opened under the Expansion and improvement scheme shall be deemed to have been taken over by the State government with effect from the Ist day January, 1971. (2) Aided Elementary Schools, the Managing Committees of which have handed over voluntarily the control of the School of the Government, shall be taken over by the State Government with effect from the date which shall be determined by the District Committee referred to in sub Section (4) for this purpose. (3) Elementary Schools administered by any public or private undertaking shall be taken over by the State Government by publication of notification in the official gazette with effect from the date to be specified therein. (3) Elementary Schools administered by any public or private undertaking shall be taken over by the State Government by publication of notification in the official gazette with effect from the date to be specified therein. (4) (a) With regard to the taking over of Elementary Schools other than those mentioned in sub Sections (I) and (5) 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 consists of the following members: (i) Deputy Development Commissioner/Administrator, District Board Chairman. (ii) District Superintendent of Education Society. (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 personal of the District committee's so constituted" Section 3 of the Act it would appear provides for different modes of take over of different categories of Elementary Schools while Schools established and administered by local bodies and those opened under the Expansion and Improvement scheme as mentioned in sub Section (1) stand automatically taken over with effect from January 1, 1977, with respect to aided Schools, sub Section (4) provides for examination of feasibility of take over by District committee consisting of the personal as mentioned therein 7. S.B Sanayal, J., in Nand Keshwar Singh (supra) has taken the view following certain decisions of the point that once the District Committee passes an unanimous decision for taking over the School with effect from the certain date requirement of sub Section (2) of Section 3 for the purpose of takeover of the School is complete no other act is required on the part of the Government to complete the process of takeover. In State of Bihar and ors V. Sri Chandra Dip Rai & ors, A.I.R. 1981 Supreme Court 2071) The Supreme Court appears to have held otherwise. Sanyal, J noticed the said decision of the Supreme Court but held the decision supplies to school, covered by Section (3) of Section 3 alone. With utmost regret and respect to the lean Judge I am not able to reconcile myself of the said view. Sanyal, J noticed the said decision of the Supreme Court but held the decision supplies to school, covered by Section (3) of Section 3 alone. With utmost regret and respect to the lean Judge I am not able to reconcile myself of the said view. A conjoint reading of sub Section (2) sub Section (4) of Section 3 makes its clear, in my view, that the aim and object as indeed the only function of the District Committee is to examine the feasibility of take over and determine the effective date of takeover. The District Committee is like recommending body Examination of feasibility can not tantamount to authority to take over. In view of the words "shall be taken by the State Government with effect from the which shall be determine by the district Committee occurring in sub Section (2) it is difficult to hold that no other Act is required to be done on the part of the State Government to complete the process of takeover. The District Committee can only fix the effective date of takeover, of Course, in cases where after examination of the feasibility it comes to a favorable conclusion. In the of absence of any specific provision to that effect the provisions cannot be read as delegating the authority to takeover or nationalize and institution to committee which authority otherwise vest in the other State. Absence of words "publication of notification in the official gazette" can not be in constituted as abdication of power of the State or delegation of power to the Committee. It is significant to notice that in he Case of Chandradip Rai (supra) the Apex Court was considering the case of a School covered by sub Section (2). The claim for payment of salary was rejected on the finding that, “The School not having taken over the State Government under S 3 of the Act, the Consequence set forth under sub sec, (2) of S 4 do not ensue" in the instant case, no notification of the takeover the School has been brought on record. As noticed above, the basis of claim is the latter of the Regional Deputy Director dated February 19,1997. 8. The above discussion has been made on the premise that the School is an aided School. As noticed above, the basis of claim is the latter of the Regional Deputy Director dated February 19,1997. 8. The above discussion has been made on the premise that the School is an aided School. It may, however, be stated here that no Statement to effect that the School is an aided School has been made in the write petition. In that view, the condition in regard to deemed to take over by reason of the report of the committee is fit to be rejected in this ground alone. It would not be out of place to maintain here that the case of Sri Rajendra Prasad Sinha v. The State of Bihar [1991 (1) PLJR 412] this Court has held that merely because Teachers are paid salary from the State does not tantamount to receiving Government grant by the School much as the legal identity of the School is different from that of the Teachers working there in. 9. Counsel alternatively submitted that if the said letter of the Regional Deputy Director is not held to be sufficient compliance of requirement, direction may be issued to the respondents to consider the claim for take over with effect from April 19, 1990. Letter of the Government complied in a book let was shown to me. The said letter relates to Project Girls Schools which from different class and, therefore is not relevant for the purpose of this case. In Rajendra Prasad Sinha (supra) it has been held that the Act does not contain any provision in regard to take over of Schools other than those mentioned in sub Sections (1),(2) and (3) of Section 3. Further, in Chandradip Rai (supra) the Supreme has rule that the High Court in writ Jurisdiction cannot issue Mandamus for takeover the School. 10. For all these reason, I am unable to find any merit in the claim of the petition. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed. Application dismissed