Judgment Radha Mohan Prasad, J. 1. The petitioner in the present writ application has challenged the validity of the notification dated 13-1-1982, contained in Annexure 1, whereby he has been granted recognition only as art Assistant Teacher in Lakhan Djhara High school, Bhojpur. 2. In short, the case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the recognised Punchsheel High School, kumhrar, Patna from 20.9.1965 to 2.7.1972. Later the villagers of village lakhan Dihara established Bhartiya high School and an advertisement was issued for appointment to the post of headmaster. The petitioner, who was m. A. , B Ed. and duly qualified, applied for the post of Headmaster in the school in response to the aforesaid advertisement. The Managing Committee of the School after the interview of the candidates including the petitioner, appointed the petitioner as Headmaster of the School and he joined in that capacity on 3-7-1972. The petitioner has been continuing as Headmaster of the School since then. Later the State government appointed the Special board for inspection for the purpose of recognition and take over of the school. The Special Board submitted its report in which the petitioner was shown as Headmaster of the School. The said report is Annexure 3 to the writ petition. The State Government, after considering the report of the special Board, recognised and took over of the management and control of the school under the provisions of the bihar Non-Governments Secondary schools (Taking Over of Management and Control) Ordinance, 143 of 1980, vide impugned notification dated 13th january, 1982 (Annexure 1 ). However, by the said notification the petitioner was granted recognition only as an Assistant Teacher with which he is aggrieved and hence filed the present writ application. 3. The writ application was admitted on 23-9-1983 and an interim order was passed that if the petitioner is working as Headmaster still, he will be allowed to continue as such during the pendency of this application. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. In the said counter affidavit it is contended that the State Government may take over the management and control of such schools which have already received permission for establishment and qualification and suitability of teachers shall be examined by a committee for the purpose of appointment in Government service. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. In the said counter affidavit it is contended that the State Government may take over the management and control of such schools which have already received permission for establishment and qualification and suitability of teachers shall be examined by a committee for the purpose of appointment in Government service. According to the respondents, under the said provision, the sub-committee examined the qualification and suitability of the petitioner and after getting approval of the State Government the services of the petitioner was approved as an Assistant Teacher and not as Headmaster. 5. Mrs. Seema Ali Khan, learned standing Counsel No. appearing for the respondents contended that as the petitioner did not possess the requisite teaching experience as per the Government circular, contained in Memo No.510, dated 20th November, 1981, issued in exercise of the power under Section 15 of the Take Over Act, he was not found eligible for continuing as Headmaster and thus, he has been only recognised as Assistant Teacher and not as a Headmaster. 6. The specific case of the petitioner made in paragraph 4 of the writ application that he was an Assistant Teacher in recognised Punchsheel high School, Kumhrar, Patna from 20-9-1965 to 2-7-1972 has not been denied in the counter affidavit. 7. The rules contained in Memo no.510 dated 20th November, 1981, which have been relied upon by the learned Standing Counsel No. IX relate to promotion to the post of Headmaster in such Schools where vacancies occurred prior to 2-10-1980, which, in my opinion, in the facts of this case, has no application at all. No other rule has been brought to my notice by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents under which qualification for appointment as Headmaster is prescribed. 8. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has referred to the Government instruction, contained in Special secretarys Memo No.511 dated 20th november, 1981 of the Education department which deals with the filling up the vacancies of the posts of Headmaster in a recognised/taken-over secondary Schools occurring prior to 2-10-1980 by appointing the founder headmasters. 8. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has referred to the Government instruction, contained in Special secretarys Memo No.511 dated 20th november, 1981 of the Education department which deals with the filling up the vacancies of the posts of Headmaster in a recognised/taken-over secondary Schools occurring prior to 2-10-1980 by appointing the founder headmasters. In the said instruction, the minimum qualifications for appointment of the founder Headmasters have been laid down in paragraph 2 which are quoted hereunder :Under clause (Ga) on the date of recognition of the School such founder headmaster must possess total teaching experience of seven years after passing of graduation in a recognised Secondary School, including in the present school. 9. It is not disputed that the petitioner is the founder Headmaster in the School He joined the School on 3-7-1972. Thus, on the date of take over, i. e. , 13th January, 1982, vide Annexure 1, the petitioner had experience of about nine and a half years in the school, besides the earlier teaching experience from 20-9- 1965 to 2-7-1972 (i. e. for about six years nine months and twelve days) in the recognised punchsheel High School, Kumhrar, Patna. 10. Thus, I am unable to appreciate as to what weighed with the committee as well as the authority not to recognise the petitioner as Headmaster in the School, particularly when from the report, contained in Annexure 3 itself, it is evident that he has been working as Headmaster in the School since 3-7-1972. Even assuming that the rule contained in Memo No.510 dated 20th November, 1981 is applicable to the case of the petitioner yet in the facts aforementioned, I am unable to hold that the petitioner did not possess the required minimum qualification. The petitioner, admittedly was a Post-Graduate degree-holder and had ten years of total teaching experience in the recognised School which is the qualification laid down in the aforesaid rule for promotion to the post of Headmaster. 11. Accordingly, the writ application succeeds and the impugned notification, contained in Annexure 1, to the extent where by the petitioner has been treated to be as an Assistant teacher in the School in question, is quashed. 11. Accordingly, the writ application succeeds and the impugned notification, contained in Annexure 1, to the extent where by the petitioner has been treated to be as an Assistant teacher in the School in question, is quashed. Let a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner afresh for grant of recognition as Headmaster in the School and give all consequential benefits. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs Petition allowed.