ORDER : The petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 13.05.2010, whereby claim for his regularisation as Headmistress has been rejected. 2. Heard. 3. Briefly stated, the petitioner was appointed on 03.03.1982 by the Managing Committee of Smt. Janki Devi Araya Kanya High School, Dhanwar, Giridih. She claims that she took over charge of Headmaster of the school on 05.03.1982. The said school was taken over by the Government through the order contained in letter dated 10.10.1983. The petitioner came to the High Court with a prayer for payment in the payscale of Headmaster. The writ petition [CWJC No. 1183 of 1999(R)] was disposed of on 13.02.2001 with a direction to the Director, Secondary Education to consider her claim. Her claim was, however, rejected vide an order dated 26.04.2002. She again approached this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3182 of 2002 which was allowed on 12.05.2004, with a direction to the Director, Secondary Education to pass a reasoned order. By an order dated 11.12.2004, petitioner's claim for regularisation as Headmistress was rejected. This decision was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 5744 of 2007, which was disposed of on 07.01.2010, again with a direction to the authority to take a decision by considering individual cases of the appointees. In compliance of the aforesaid order, order dated 13.05.2010 has been passed, which has been impugned in the present proceeding. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that on completing seven years as Incharge Headmistress the petitioner became entitled for her regularisation in service as Headmistress of the school. He has relied on the orders passed in “Shri Sarayu Prasad Roy vs. State of Bihar and Ors.” [CWJC No. 11805 of 1993(P)] and “Amin Ansari Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors.” [W.P.(S) No. 1056 of 2011] and other cases. On the other hand, referring to Full Bench decision of Patna High Court in “Ram Ballav Pd. Singh vs. the State of Bihar and Others” reported in AIR 1986 pat. 218 and the decision in “A. K. Pradhan vs. State of Bihar” reported in (1998) 2 SCC 411 , the learned State counsel contended that a teacher only upon fulfilling the conditions under notification dated 20.11.1981 read with notification dated 09.11.1987 would become eligible for regularisation/appointment as Headmaster/Headmistress of a school. 5. 218 and the decision in “A. K. Pradhan vs. State of Bihar” reported in (1998) 2 SCC 411 , the learned State counsel contended that a teacher only upon fulfilling the conditions under notification dated 20.11.1981 read with notification dated 09.11.1987 would become eligible for regularisation/appointment as Headmaster/Headmistress of a school. 5. The respondent-State has taken a plea that a founder Headmaster on taking over of the school does not automatically become Headmaster of the school. Section 4 of Bihar Non-Government Secondary Schools (Taking Over of Management and Control) Act, 1981 provides that 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, w.e.f. the date of taking over of the school and become employees of the State with such designation as the State Government may determine. However, Section 3 (3) provides that the qualification and suitability of teachers working against sanctioned nine posts in the school shall be examined by committee constituted by the State Government for examining, whether the appointee was suitable for appointment in Government service or not. In “Ram Ballav Pd. Singh vs. The State of Bihar and Others” reported in AIR 1986 pat 218 , a Full Bench of Patna High Court considering the scheme of 1981 Act held as under: “17. Once question no.1 has been answered in the terms above, the same would go to the very root of the succeeding question no.2 as well. Plainly enough, if the Headmaster is within the ambit of the 'teachers' in the second paragraph of section 3(3) then both his qualifications and his suitability are to be scrutinised by the committee constituted by the State Government, and it is only if he is found suitable for such appointment that he may be appointed in the Government service. Indeed, the larger question that emerges is that if the Headmaster is also one of the teachers working against nine posts of the school, then are the qualifications and suitability of all these teachers to be meticulously scrutinised before appointment to Government service? Or is it that all these teachers (including the Headmaster) automatically and ipso facto become Government servants and their services stand transferred to the State Government on the same terms and conditions as in the earlier unrecognised school? Or is it that all these teachers (including the Headmaster) automatically and ipso facto become Government servants and their services stand transferred to the State Government on the same terms and conditions as in the earlier unrecognised school? Second paragraph of section 3(3) meticulously provides for the closest examination of both the qualifications and the suitability of these teachers. This is to be done by a committee constituted by the State Government for this purpose. It is only if these teachers are found suitable that they are to be appointed in the Government service and not otherwise when the management of the school is taken over. Is such scrutiny and detailed procedure to be reduced to a mere farce by the theory of automatic appointment to these posts on the take over? If what the second paragraph of section 3(3) provides is a meaningful and purposeful scrutiny and assessment of first the basic qualifications and then the suitability of teachers in an unrecognised school for appointment to Government service then, obviously enough, there can be no question of the Headmaster of an unrecognised taken over school becoming automatically its Headmaster after it is taken over. To hold so would, in essence, be wiping away the second paragraph of section 3(3) and rendering the whole process of the scrutiny of the qualification and suitability of these incumbents and the creation of a committee by the State Government wholly nugatory. In the context of teachers in general and the Headmaster in particular on the plain language of the second paragraph, therefore, there is not the least semblance of any teacher or Headmaster becoming automatically a Government servant thereunder. In particular, the post of a Headmaster in a school is too crucial to be thrown empirically into a mindless automatic routine that once the take over of the school is ordered, the existing Headmaster must necessarily become the Headmaster of the nationalised school in an integrated education service. 41. To finally conclude, the answer to question No.2 posed at the outset is rendered in the negative. It is held that the Headmaster of a school taken over under section 3(3) does not automatically become the Headmaster of the school after its take over under section 4(2) of the Act. 42. 41. To finally conclude, the answer to question No.2 posed at the outset is rendered in the negative. It is held that the Headmaster of a school taken over under section 3(3) does not automatically become the Headmaster of the school after its take over under section 4(2) of the Act. 42. Now it is common ground that at no stage whatsoever the case of the petitioners had been referred to the Education Service Board far from there being any recommendation by such Board in their favour of any appointment as such by the authorised officer of the State Government. To hold otherwise that the petitioners became the Headmasters of the newly nationalised schools would thus be running into the teeth of the categoric statutory instructions and violation of the letter and spirit of the standard methodology of appointing Headmasters to the Government or nationalised schools. It remained undisputed before us that earlier the Headmasters of all Government schools and equally of recognised private schools could only be appointed on a reference to and recommendation by the Service Board. On larger policy that is an eminently meritorious one and the same has now been condified by statutory instructions on the point. Equally reference must also be made to Section 10 of the Act which provides for the establishment and function of School Service Board. A reading of its 10th subsection leaves no manner of doubt that the larger purpose of this section is that appointments or promotion of Headmasters of nationalised schools are not to be made empirically but after consideration and recommendation of such statutory Board. The relevant part of subsection (9) provides as follows: “(9) The Board shall make recommendations for appointment of teachers and for appointment of promotion of Headmaster of nationalised secondary schools to the Director in accordance with this Ordinance and the rules framed thereunder: Provided that for promotion of teachers to selection grade post the recommendation of the Board shall not be necessary: Provided further that the absence of the recommendation of the Board, and in special circumstances and in anticipation of the recommendation of the Board, the State Government shall be competent to make ad hoc promotion to the post of Headmaster for a period not exceeding six months and to make ad hoc appointment in the prescribed manner to the post of teachers for a period not exceeding six months. xx xx xx To my mind, both letter and spirit of this provision indicate that there is no automatic transfer of the existing Headmasters of the private unrecognised schools as the Headmasters of the nationalised schools as well. Such a finding would be the antithesis of the process of selection and recommendation by an expert body like School Service Board. 6. A similar view has been taken in “Deobansh Pandey vs. the State of Bihar and Others” reported in 1993 (1) PLJR 221 , wherein the Court observed as under: “11. Rule 4 of the Rules provides for eligibility for appointment/promotion to the post of headmaster and rule 7(Ka) provides the procedure for such appointment/promotion. Rule 4 (Ka)(3) (3A) provides that in the matter of direct appointment to the post of headmaster, the candidates must have 10 years teaching experience in a recognised school after graduation but in the case of scheduled tribe, Harijan and founder headmaster, 7 years minimum teaching experience will be deemed to be sufficient. In the note appended to the said Rule, it has been provided that the founder headmaster will mean a teacher, who has been appointed in the school prior to 2.10.80 and who has been in service of the school since the date of its establishment continuously without any break and who was having the requisite educational qualification and eligibility for the post of incharge headmaster right from the beginning. 13. 13. In my opinion, neither the petitioner nor the Respondent No.4 who lay their claims on the basis of the said Government letter, for seeking promotion on the post of headmaster of the school, are entitled to claim such promotion nor it was competent on the part of the respondent authorities to accord any benefit to the respondent no.4 pursuant to the said Government letters, because of following reasons; (i) After coming into force of the Rules, the promotion/appointment could have been made only in accordance with the provisions contained in the Rules, (ii) The Government letter in question stood repealed in view of Rule 21 of the Rules and (iii) Under the Rules a teacher could be deemed to be a founder headmaster, who, apart from other requirements is also, possessed with the requisite educational qualifications and eligibilities right from the beginning of his joining the service in the school, which neither the petitioner nor the respondent no.4 had inasmuch as they passed their B.Ed. examination and Diploma in teaching much after their joining the service.” 7. The judgment in “Ram Ballav Pd. Singh” was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, however, without success. It would be useful to record that, in “A.K. Pradhan”, the Hon'ble Supreme Court noticing that the view taken by the Full Bench in “Ram Ballav Pd. Singh” case was affirmed by the Supreme Court in the previous proceeding holding that the Headmaster has no right to be automatically absorbed as a government servant when an unrecognised school is taken over by the Government, did not accept the plea that on completion of seven years from the date when the school was taken over, if the teacher had continued on the post of Headmaster, he becomes entitled for confirmation on the post of Headmaster, and the Special Leave Petition was disposed of with an observation that if the appointee had completed seven years of service reckoned from the date on which the institution was taken over by the Government, his claim for regularisation shall be considered. From the aforesaid judgments, it is, thus, apparent that on completion of seven years as Headmaster/founder Headmaster on the date of taking over of the school or, on completion of seven years working on the post of Headmaster after the school is taken over, a teacher automatically does not become entitled for regularisation/confirmation on the post of Headmaster. From the aforesaid judgments, it is, thus, apparent that on completion of seven years as Headmaster/founder Headmaster on the date of taking over of the school or, on completion of seven years working on the post of Headmaster after the school is taken over, a teacher automatically does not become entitled for regularisation/confirmation on the post of Headmaster. This Court in “The State of Jharkhand vs. Nirbhay Kumar Jha” (L.P.A. No. 114 of 2013) has also taken a similar view. This Court has observed as under: “12. In view of above cited case laws, Headmaster of a School does not automatically become the Headmaster of the School after its take over under Section 4(2) of the Act. Headmaster, being a promotional post, can be made only after consideration of recommendation of such statutory Board and the petitioner, who was absorbed as Government Teacher after getting recognition of the School on 2.10.1980 cannot get automatic status of a Headmaster since he has not completed seven years continuous services in a Government recognized institution and even after completion of seven years in Government School, he cannot be made Headmaster as the post of Headmaster is a promotional post and selection and appointment on promotional post is governed by Rules.” 8. The facts disclosed in the present proceeding would indicate that the petitioner's appointment as Headmistress was not in consonance with the notification dated 12.10.1982. It is now well settled by the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that regularisation on the post of Headmaster/Headmistress is not automatic. A procedure is prescribed under the law, under which recommendation of Vidyalaya Seva Board is mandatory. Only upon scrutiny of the eligibility and suitability of a teacher, one can be appointed/regularised as Headmaster/Headmistress of a school. Claim of the petitioner has been examined by the respondent-authority on previous occasions also, however, the petitioner has failed to establish that she fulfills the conditions under 1981 Act and the Government's decision as reflected in several notifications/circulars. The cases relied upon by the petitioner are clearly distinguishable on facts. 9. Finding no merit in the writ petition, it is dismissed.