IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 731 of 2003 Devendra Singh Negi & others ……….Petitioners. Versus State of Uttaranchal and others …….Respondents Mr. Manoj Tiwari, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Alok Mehra, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) Heard learned counsels for the parties. The petitioners in the present writ petitions are Assistant Teachers in Primary/Junior High School presently working in different parts of the State. One of the essential qualification for appointment as a teacher in primary school is a certificate known as “Basic Teaching Certificate”. Admittedly, the petitioners did not possess this certificate. It was only this certificate of B.T.C. which would entitled the petitioner to be called as a “trained teachers”. Admittedly, the petitioners did not have this qualification at the time of their initial appointment as primary teachers. Be that as it may, the qualification the petitioners apart from their being graduates was the qualification known as “C.P.Ed.” i.e. Certificate in Physical Education. C.P.Ed. is a training certificate which is given to those who are qualified as Physical Training Instructor. All the same, in the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh as well as in the State of Uttarakhand certain concessions were granted by the Government as a matter of policy decision and C.P.Ed. trained teachers were also appointed as teachers in primary schools. Consequently, the 2 petitioners gained appointment in primary schools, however, there was a rider attached to it inasmuch as these teachers would not be considered as “trained teachers” and would be given salary of “untrained teachers”. Admittedly, the salary of untrained teacher is lower than that of trained teacher. By the subsequent Government Orders an in-house B.T.C. Training Programme was envisaged by the Government and consequently in the year 2000 and later, all the petitioners have completed this training and thereafter they became entitled to get the pay-scale of trained teachers. The fact that the petitioners were getting the salary of trained teachers post their special B.T.C. training cannot be an issue before this Court, as by all scores and measures they were now trained teachers after B.T.C. training. The only issue is as to whether the petitioners were entitled to the salary of trained teachers prior to their getting B.T.C. training. In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioners are not entitled to the salary of trained teachers prior to their completing such training. However, by an order of the competent authority i.e. the “Basic Siksha Adhikari” dated 8.1.2000 the petitioners started getting the salary of trained teacher from the date of their initial appointment. This order was passed by the “Basic Siksha Adhikari” consequent to the order passed by the Allahabad High Court dated 13.10.1999 in Writ Petition No. 31630 of 1998, where the “Basic Shiksha Adhikari” was directed to decide the representations of the petitioners. Admittedly, the order dated 8.1.2000 was passed by the “Basic Siksha Adhikari” entirely on misreading of the Order of Allahabad High Court dated 13.10.1999 3 inasmuch as the Allahabad High Court nowhere directed the concerned Authority to grant the salary of trained teacher to the petitioners. What was directed was to consider the claim of the petitioner. Since the Basic Education Officer granted the salary of trained teachers to petitioners, on a misreading of the High Court’s order, it was for this reason, the “Basic Siksha Adhikari” reviewed its order dated 8.1.2000 vide order dated 9.5.2003 (which has been presently impugned in this writ petition) by which it was directed that the petitioners were not entitled for getting the salary of trained teachers. It is the considered opinion of this Court there is nothing wrong with the impugned order so far it holds that the petitioners were not entitled to the salary of the trained teacher. However, the consequential order dated 14.7.2003 which has also been impugned here states that the difference of the salary of the trained teacher and untrained teacher will be recovered from the petitioners. This order, in the opinion of this Court, is neither equitable nor fair as the petitioners never committed any fraud or concealed any fact from the concerned authorities as to their qualifications. The order by which the petitioners were getting the salary of trained teacher was passed by the “Basic Siksha Adhikari”, which was passed on total misreading of High Court’s order. In sum and substance, the petitioners are not at fault. Though in the concerned opinion of this Court, the petitioners were not entitled for the pay-scale of trained teachers, yet for the reasons stated above, the recovery being initiated against them and the order which are presently impugned are totally unjustified. Therefore, though this Court holds that the C.P.Ed. qualified teachers are not trained teachers and therefore are not 4 entitled for the salary of a trained teacher, yet the recovery initiated against them is not proper, under the facts and circumstances of the case. In view of the aforesaid, order dated 14.7.2003 passed by respondent no. 3 i.e. District Basic Education Officer, Chamoli is hereby quashed. Writ Petition is partly allowed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 25.6.2010 Avneet