Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice Bell:Plaintiffs-appellants are temporary professional employes who, after three years of service, seek reinstatement and the status of regular* professional employes, although they have never been “rated” as satisfactory in compliance with the mandatory and prerequisite provisions of the Act of March 10, 1949, §1108(b), as amended. Section 1108(b) provides: “A temporary professional employe whose work has been certified by the county superintendent of schools or the district superintendent to the secretary of the school district, during the last four (4) months of the second year of such service, as being satisfactory shall thereafter be a ‘professional employee’ within the meaning of this article.”
This issue is directly and expressly governed and controlled by Maxwell v. Farrell School District Board of Directors, 381 Pa. 561, 566-567, 112 A. 2d 192. I strongly disagree with the statement upon which the majority bases its conclusion, viz., “the failure on the part of the superintendent to rate is tantamount to a satisfactory rating.” It is clear as crystal that plaintiffs are not entitled to be reinstated as regular professional employes and that the majority’s holding flies in the teeth of Maxwell v. Farrell School District Board of Directors, supra.
However, §1108(a) of the Act of 1949 provides: “No temporary professional employe shall be dismissed unless rated unsatisfactory, and notification, in writing, of such unsatisfactory rating shall have been fur*268nished the employe within ten (10) days following the date of such rating.” Since appellants were dismissed without any unsatisfactory rating, I would, remand the case to the Court below with directions to the Superintendent to rate .their work as unsatisfactory or satisfactory and thereafter enter an appropriate Order.
Italics throughout, ours.