Judgment 1. This writ petition was taken up on 26.10.1999 but it was not heard in view of the fact that the name of the learned counsel for the State was not shown in the daily cause list. Thus this Court directed that the name of the learned counsel for the State may be inserted. Thereafter learned counsel for the State has appeared today and he has been heard. 2. No one appears for the petitioner today when the matter is called on. It is an old matter of 1987. It may be noted that the case was dismissed for default previously on 5.3.1998. Thereafter it was restored and even then no body appears for the petitioner today. 3. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer for a direction upon the authorities to recognise the service of the petitioner as the Headmaster of the School with effect from 2.10.1980. It is not in dispute that the school in question is a recognised one and the same has been taken over under the provisions of the Bihar Non-Government Secondary Schools (Taking Over of Management and Control) Act. It appears that the school in question has been taken over on 2.10.1980. This fact is not disputed by the petitioner as the petitioner has stated this fact in paragraph 4 of the writ petition. It is also not in dispute that the school has been recognised on 23.3.1979 and as such the experience of the petitioner, if any, as the Headmaster has to be counted from that date. Therefore, going by that criteria the petitioners experience on the date of take over of the school in question is much less than ten years. 4. In that view of the matter, this Court cannot pass any order directing the respondents authorities to recognise the petitioner as the Headmaster of the school. Reference in this connection may be made to the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Ram Balak Prasad Singh V/s. State of Bihar and ors. reported in 1998 (3) P.L.J.R. page 255. In paragraph 17 of the judgment the learned Judge has dealt with the laws on the subject and has also referred to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Phulena Prasad Yadav V/s. State of Bihar reported in 1991 (2) P.L.J.R. page 449. reported in 1998 (3) P.L.J.R. page 255. In paragraph 17 of the judgment the learned Judge has dealt with the laws on the subject and has also referred to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Phulena Prasad Yadav V/s. State of Bihar reported in 1991 (2) P.L.J.R. page 449. The learned Judge has held that the case of teachers for promotion as Headmaster has to be with reference to the state of affairs as existing on 2.10.1980 and with reference to that very date, the teaching experience of the teacher has to be counted. 5. The learned Judge has distinguished the applicability of the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of A.K. Pradhan by detailed reasoning given in paragraphs 14, 15 and 16 of the judgment and has held in paragraph 17 that the Division Bench judgment is still holding the field. 6. This Court is in respectful agreement with the law laid down in the case of Ram Balak Prasad Singh (supra) and holds that the cut off date for counting experience for filling up the post of Headmaster of a nationalised school where the vacancy has occurred prior to 2.10.1980 is the date of nationalisation and any experience gained thereafter cannot be counted for the said purpose. 7. In that view of the matter, this Court finds that there is no merit in this writ petition which is dismissed in view of the decision in Ram Balak Prasad Singh (supra). There will be no order as to cost.