IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.2135/2008 Reserved on:18.4.2009 Decided on:15.5.2009 Nand Lal and others. …Petitioners. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. No. For the petitioner : Mr.K.C. Sankhayan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents. Rajiv Sharma, J. The petitioners have assailed Annexures P-2, P-4 and P-5 by way of present petition. The case of the petitioners, in nutshell, is that the decision of the respondent-State to accord seniority to Emergency Basic Training Holders/Untrained Junior Basic Trained Teachers from the date of their initial appointment is bad. They have assailed the issuance of seniority list in sequel to Annexures P-2 and P-3 vide Annexure P-4. They had assailed the decision before the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 1590/1991. The same was directed to be treated as representation by the learned Himachal Pradesh 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 Administrative Tribunal. The same was rejected by the Director of Primary Education on 19.1.1993. Mr. K.C. Sankhayan, Advocate has strenuously argued that the decision of the State to accord seniority to the Emergency Basic Training Holders/Untrained Junior Basic Trained Teachers from the date of their initial appointment is arbitrary. He then contended that the petitioners have been adversely affected by this decision of the State and their promotional avenues have also been affected. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has argued that in fact by a subsequent decision the State had decided to withdraw the concession given to the untrained teachers and it was decided to accord them seniority from the date of acquiring of qualification. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. In CWP (T) No. 2205/2008, tilted Subhash Chand and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others decided on 24.3.2009, the petitioners therein had assailed the decision of the State whereby the earlier decision to grant seniority to them from the date of initial appointment was withdrawn. This Court has allowed the CWP (T) No. 2205/2008 (supra). The decision dated 21.9.1993 of the respondent-State to withdraw the benefits granted to the petitioners was struck down. In other words, it was held that the petitioners were entitled to get their seniority in CWP (T) No. 2205/2008 from the date of their initial appointment. However, Mr. K.C. Sankhayan has relied upon U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad and another versus Hari Deo Mani Tripathi and others, (1996) 9 SCC 623 to substantiate that the persons, who are untrained, cannot be treated at par with trained teachers. The judgment citied by Mr. Sankhayan is distinguishable. In that case separate seniority 3 lists of trained and untrained teachers were prepared and the pay scales were also different. In the present case, the State has prepared joint seniority list of the trained and untrained teachers and the untrained teachers were also granted the same pay scale which was paid to the trained teachers vide letter dated 1.9.1979. Accordingly, in view of the judgment rendered by this Court in Subhash Chand and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others (supra), there is no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. 15.5.2009 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*